Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 1 Part 14) (9/12/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're going to pick up, where he left off with day number one of the prelim hearing of Tyler Robinson, who's been accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. Judge Graff? So I'll hear your arguments about the 1102 statement. I'll return to Miss Nester for any final thoughts, and then I'll make my ruling, and then we can move on to the next stage. Prosecution, I appreciate that judge. I think I've addressed the 1102 question, as far as admissibility, under Rule 1102. I thought that's what you wanted to rule on first, and then I would address the UCJA4-202.02, and if you want me to do that now, I can do that. And it's just simply that it has nothing to do with admissibility. It has everything to do with publishing that. And judge, I think if you'll look at the written statement, I believe Miss Wright's personal information for the most part has been redacted. Other than that, beyond that, judge, I'll leave it up to your discretion.

1:02Judge Graff, well, as it relates to, well, let me take a look at this one time. Let's start with the last statement. What I have in front of me is plaintiff Exhibit 6.1. Has there a full information here? Address, phone number, social security number? Prosecution? Okay, judge, I apologize for that. I thought we'd provided a redacted version of that. Yeah, I think I've clarified what's going on here. I think we provided you with an unredacted version some time ago. The version that we have and are prepared to present today is a redacted version. Judge Graff, could I have a copy of what you're intending to admit into evidence so I can consider that and consider what's before me? The prosecution, yeah, judge, we can bring it up electronically. We don't have a hard copy of it. Judge Graff, all right, I want to make sure that's not coming on screen. It's just coming on my screen to review it. Okay, no, that's fine. It's just from my, I can look at it on my screen because I'm trying to evaluate. So if you just want to put it back on my screen,

2:02well, so what I'm doing is looking at this and just for clarity moving forward, if there's a particular exhibit, I'll ask that you provide it instead of relying upon here just so that there's no misunderstanding and I can see exactly what is being moved into evidence. I don't want to assume and I want to do the proper analysis. Prosecution, I appreciate that judge and I apologize. I understood that we are presenting redacted copies today. I think that there's just been a little bit of a glitch, so I apologize for that. Judge Graff, all right, and Ms. Nester, I just want to make sure what you're looking at, this exhibit as opposed to what I was just looking at in regard to your argument. With this clarification in mind, any update on your argument or anything that you would like the court to consider? Kathy Nester, the only other issue I think that exists with this, that I haven't already raised is that there is clearly two different authors in the body of the document. One wrote something on the very top line and then it looks like Ms. Wright wrote the

3:03rest of it, which we don't have any indication of who wrote that top line and when they filled that in. If it was before or after, she signed the document, so I have some concerns about authenticity with respect to that as well, and that's all I have. Judge Graff, all right, and as I'm determining it, it does appear that the writing is different. Did you want to lay additional foundation or provide information for the court? Prosecution, I'd be happy to do that. Do you have it in front of the state exhibit six dot one? I do, yes. Prosecution, okay, you've heard the discussion that just took place. It appears as if there's two different styles of writing on that form. Mr. Hall, yes, McBride, okay, I imagine that you have the writing that includes the personal information for Ms. Wright and then directly below that, I think there's a line there that appears to be arguably written prepared by somebody else. Is that in fact accurate? Answer, that's correct. Prosecution, author of that writing, what do you know about the writing on the first line below

4:07the statement incident? Now the witness answers again. Because we were asking Ms. Wright to verify a specific video, the file name for that video was written on the statement in her presence, and that video with that file name was then shown to Ms. Wright to verify that it was in fact the video that she had provided to us. Question, okay, and so was it you or SBI agent Davis that prepared that answer based on the writing? It appears to be agent Davis's writing, but it's not my writing. Question, all right, but that is the routine or is that kind of how you commonly do this? Answer in this case because we were specifically asking them to verify a specific digital file that had a specific digital name and we didn't want there to be any errors in how the name was presented. We wrote the file name on the document for individuals. Question, okay, judge Graf jumps in, all right, anything further, Ms. Nester, with the additional information before the court? Makes it to ruling? Kathy Nester, no. Judge Graf, all right, thank you. Could you leave that

5:10on screen for me please? I appreciate that. And scroll down to the bottom. I just want to review it one last time, all right, and I believe this is exhibit 6.1. Is that correct? Prosecution, it is judge, and I would move to admit 6.1. Judge Graf, thank you. So considering the argument made by Ms. Nester and Mr. Sturgell, I rely upon Rule 1102 as well as the Utah Constitutional Article 1, Section 12. As I previously mentioned, that final paragraph it states nothing in the Constitution shall preclude the use of reliable hearsay as defined by statute or rule, and holer in part, at any prelim examination to determine probable cause or at any pre-trial proceeding, with a respect to the release of the defendant if appropriate discovery is allowed as defined by the statute or the rule. I've examined this, and the clarification was made. The previous version of this would have fallen foul of having identifiable personal information of Ms. Wright, and so that was removed,

6:13and this one, with a redacted portion of the identifiable information, personal information for Ms. Wright is before me, and based off of that, states exhibits 6.1 with redactions is admitted into evidence and may be published. Prosecution, thank you, judge, age and hole that statement was prepared by Ms. Wright. What does it state with regard to the video that you showed her the other day, or I guess Agent Davis showed her that day? Answer, it states that she's confirmed that she reviewed the video, and that it's a true reflection of the video that she took on September 10th, 2025. Question, and does she identify who's in that video in her statement, answer, herself and her young two young children? Kathy Nester, your honor, if we could just have a clarification on the court's ruling. So I understand the court overruled and published, and I accept the ruling, but I thought under the court's previous order that the media was not going to film exhibits, and they are filming the ones that are on the screen. So I guess I just need to clarify that,

7:15your honor, I'm sorry. Judge Graff, no, and I appreciate the clarification, it's important. What my ruling, when we came back from the break was, if you're objecting specifically to the exhibit, and then to the exhibit being published in the courtroom, and then the exhibit being published, which can be captured by media. If that's not specifically addressed, I'm going to allow it. So I didn't hear a specific objection to that. So I appreciate you bringing that up, but that's how I'm looking at every single objection, just for the clarity of the record. Kathy Nester, thank you, your honor. So just to make sure I correct the record, we are objecting to the publication of this under the UCJA rules for the reason I said, but I respect that you've ruled on it. And in the future, I guess we'll just make particularly clear we're objecting to publication, because I do think that anything getting out on the screen is getting filmed. Judge Graff, Kathy Nester, so thank you, your honor. Judge Graff, thank you, Mr. Nester, Ms. Nester, and Mr. Sturgial, did you want to respond? I mean, Jeannie's a little bit out of the

8:18bottle on this particular issue, but any record you wish to make? Prosecution, judge, we're simply going to seek to admit each one of these exhibits, and then we're going to leave it up to your honor's discretion on whether to publish them beyond. Well, to what extent you want to publish them. Judge Graff, all right, well, I'd prefer argument on this issue from both sides. This is the burden of the state, so I don't want to exceed my lane by just assuming, so I'll leave it to you to make the argument that what you're requesting. Prosecution, sorry about that, Judge, so before you're moving on, as it relates to this, I just want to put this to bed, and then we can move on. Were you requesting for it to be published on the three? You moved it into evidence, which I approved. It isn't moved into evidence, but I didn't hear anything in regard to publishing to the courtroom, and then lastly, publishing, which would be captured by the camera in the back. Prosecution, judge, we believe these were public documents, so we would ask that they be that they be published both to the audience

9:19and the public at large. Judge Graff, all right, well given that we've gone past the gate on this one, it's been published. But I think we're all on the same page in regards to how objections may be made and how the court's going to consider it so we can move forward. Prosecution, thank you. Have you personally watched Miss Wright's video? He's asking the witness. Witness responds, I have, yes. Question, okay, and what's depicted in that video? Answer it's a view of Miss Wright's position in the crowd of the event on September 10th. Question, and absent the written statement from Miss Wright, can you at least recognize the location that's displayed or depicted in this particular video? Answer, yeah, it's the app of theater at the Utah Valley University where Mr. Kirk was doing his event. Question, okay, on your screen exhibit six, do you see anything on your screen yet? Just the very beginning. Answer, it's there now. Question, it's there now. Do you recognize what's depicted on the screen right now? Answer, I do, yes.

10:20Question, what is that? Answer, it's the background is the Hall of Flegs, and then you have the gazebo under which Mr. Kirk was presenting his event from, and then the crowd between where Miss Wright was and the stage. Question, okay, but do you recognize what this is at the beginning of? Answer, yeah, this is the beginning of Miss Wright's video. Question, okay, judge, the state would move to what's been Mark's state's exhibit six dot one. Oh, I'm sorry six, I apologize. Judge graph, and to what level? Cathy Nester goes to object, judge cuts her off. Hold on, hold on, Ms. Nester, I just wanted to get clarification, and then I'll certainly turn to you. So the level of admitting into evidence, then the next level is publishing it to the courtroom, and then the next level is publishing it in a way that's captured by the media. What is your full request? Prosecution, judge, we'd ask that first, first of all, it be admitted that it be published here within the courtroom, and then that it also be published to the public at large. Judge graph,

11:24all right, and I'm not quite sure what this particular video is showing. Could you lay a little bit more foundation or proper that? What is this? Answer, sure, you've seen the video, Agent Hall? Answer, correct, question, what's depicted in this video? Answer the crowd at the beginning of Mr. Cook's presentation, Mr. Kirk's presentation to the audience in the Ampitheater on UVU on September 10th, 2025. Question, okay, does it depict Ms. Wright? Answer, I believe towards the end of the video, it scrolls back and Ms. Wright shows the people that she's with at the event and herself. Judge graph, all right, so is there any act of alleged violence in this particular, gets cut off by the prosecutor? No, there is not, Judge, but there is not. Judge graph, okay, I just needed the clarification, Ms. Nester, I'll turn to you. I just wanted to make sure I understood the full scope of the exhibit and then hear from your objection, if any. Cathy Nester, your honor, with respect to admission, we object to its admission on the grounds that it's not properly authenticated,

12:27as Ms. Wright herself is not present for all the constitutional reasons we raised in our standing objection. We object to that. As far as the publication, we object to its publication. It definitely is something that is in its current form without her here would not be admissible in any place other than a prelim hearing. And we feel this would really impinge on Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial. And so we're asking it not to be published. And certainly if the court does publish it, that it certainly not be filmed. Judge graph, thank you. Prosecution, any response? Prosecution, Judge Rule 901 addresses authenticating or identifying evidence to satisfy the requirement of authenticating a document or I guess authenticating a piece of evidence. The proponent in the case is the state must produce evidence sufficient to support of finding that the item is what the proponent claims it to be. And then the rule goes on to explain or provide examples of how this rule can be satisfied. And at the very top under subsection B1

13:28is testimony of a witness with knowledge. That goes on to say that testimony, that an item is what it's claimed to be, satisfies this authentication rule. Judge, you have an 1102 statement prepared by the person who actually caught these images on her camera or on her phone. And so Judge, I think that alone sufficiently authenticates the document. And then even further than that, you have Agent Hall who reviewed the video himself and authenticates it, at least regards to location. Judge graph, thank you. As it relates to admissibility of this exhibit, I believe states exhibit six is that is it? Yes, it is, Judge. Kathy Nester jumps in. Your honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. Can I add one more thing for the record? Judge graph, you may. Kathy Nester, for purposes of publication, question under UCJA for dash 202.024R as in Richard, photograph, film or video of a crime victim, are designated as private court records. And I do think that based on what the state has previously

14:31referenced, based on what the state has previously referenced, they are perceiving that everyone in the audience is a potential victim. And so we think it should be published or shouldn't be published under that rule. Judge graph, prosecution on that final point, prosecution, Judge, I appreciate the argument from Miss Nester and we don't necessarily disagree, but to that end to protect who believes his victims in the video, I believe their faces have been blurred out. Judge graph, oh I see Miss Nester, she Kathy Nester responds, I think it's only the minor children whose faces were blurred, not Miss Wright, if I'm mistaken, unless it's been subsequently altered. Prosecution, my recollection is they've all been blurred out. Judge graph, all right, I need to view this again. So let's just put this on my monitor again. I'm just trying to make sure that in order for me to make a ruling on this, I need to view it. So let's just put it on the monitor, play it without any sound. Okay, my understanding is the prosecution has control of the exhibit. So what I'm asking is that the

15:31sound be turned off. If there is any, and just go ahead and play it. Well, it's on all the party's monitors because I want you all to view it because that can go directly to as I as you've mentioned Miss Nester, whether it's possibly admissible. So let's go ahead and play it. All right, thank you. Based off what I've watched, there was some blurring of faces, but not all the places. And so I'm going to rule that it's admissible. Nester, sorry, Your Honor. Can we clarify something for a minute? Judge graph, sure. I'll wait until all parties are ready to proceed. So anything further? Prosecution, no judge. You've had a chance to watch it. Judge graph, I did. So I'm ruling that it's admissible into evidence. Again, taking into consideration the analysis the courts talked about regards to 11.02s. And this particular piece of evidence as it relates to the 11.02 statement, 6.1. And I'm going to allow it to admit, into evidence because the faces of the alleged victims are not all obscured. There are some that are visible. It's not going to be published in court monitor. And obviously not to be filmed by the media. So the court will receive it into evidence.

16:36The court will watch it again right now. And then we can continue to proceed. Prosecution, very good. Thank you, judge. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here. 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.