00:12:31.300All right. Well, thank you. I appreciate your cooperation today.
00:12:42.860As we begin this morning, the court wishes to acknowledge the importance of the safety,
00:12:47.260dignity, and well-being of all those who are present or who may be present during these
00:12:52.780proceedings, including the parties, counsel, witnesses, court staff, and members of the public.
00:12:58.220The court is also mindful of its solemn obligation to protect and uphold the constitutional rights of both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Kirk.
00:13:07.880In furtherance of those important interests, all persons attending these proceedings are reminded that portable electronic devices are not permitted in the courtroom or on the fourth floor.
00:13:19.060The court also expects every person in attendance will be treated with the dignity and respect to which they are entitled.
00:13:25.560consistent with the court standing to quorum order all spectators shall remain quiet civil
00:13:32.020and orderly during all times spectators shall not engage in conduct that is distracting
00:13:38.320disruptive provocative disrespectful uncivil or threatening in any manner spectators shall not
00:13:46.220make audible comments of any kind shall not shake or nod their heads and shall not make gestures or
00:13:52.280other visible reactions during today's hearing. Spectators shall also not wear or display pins,
00:13:59.240buttons, signs, clothing, photographs, or other items expressing support for or opposing to any
00:14:07.440person connected with this case or expressing any position concerning the status of this case
00:14:12.680as a capital offense. The court appreciates the cooperation of all present in maintaining a
00:14:19.460courtroom environment that is safe, respectful, orderly, and faithful to the rights and dignity
00:14:24.840of every person involved. Turning now to counsel. Before we begin, I wish to acknowledge the
00:14:31.520professionalism, civility, and competence demonstrated by counsel for both the defense
00:14:36.820and prosecution during yesterday's proceedings. It is evident to the court that each of you
00:14:42.160approach this matter with seriousness, preparation, and a deep commitment to your
00:14:47.380respected responsibilities. The court appreciates the care which you have taken in advocating for
00:14:53.600your positions and the respectful manner in which you have done so. Thank you. Do either party require
00:15:00.080the benefit of the record before we proceed? The state does. Your Honor, Mr. McBride will address
00:15:05.460the court. All right. And just as a reminder, the microphones at council table are turned off to
00:15:10.400prevent the inadvertent capture of any communication. So if you would like to come forward, thank you.
00:15:15.780and turning to Mr. McBride. Thank you, Your Honor. Before this hearing, the defense moved to
00:15:21.380find Article 1, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution, Rule 7b, and Rule 1102
00:15:28.160unconstitutional as it relates to the admissibility of hearsay and reliable hearsay at this hearing.
00:15:34.420The issue was extensively briefed and argued. The court denied the defense motion to exclude
00:15:39.920the use of reliable hearsay at the preliminary hearing. That ruling is at docket number 631.
00:15:45.780In addition, defense counsel filed a standing objection on July 3rd, that's docket 678.
00:15:52.820The standing objection reasserted the arguments made in defendant's previous motion.
00:15:58.440Defendant continues to make these same objections throughout the testimony of each witness.
00:16:03.040I believe both the state and the court and everyone present knows that the defense objects to the use of hearsay or reliable hearsay at this hearing.
00:16:10.780On the point of preserving the objection, that has been done.
00:16:14.300defense counsel has filed their motion they filed their standing objection
00:16:18.340throughout the proceeding they have continued to make objections at this
00:16:21.740point further objection is unnecessary to preserve the record and causes undue
00:16:27.180and unnecessary delay this is needless delay and we'd ask the court to
00:16:33.200acknowledge and the record to reflect the standing objection and we also ask
00:16:37.740the court to give an instruction the continuing objections on this ground are
00:16:40.960unnecessary. Of course, if it relates to some other ground or is some item that's particular
00:16:46.220to a particular statement, that objection may be appropriate. But at this point, we
00:16:50.540feel that the repeated objections that have been made and already been ruled upon are
00:21:05.640And would you just remind us what that exhibit consists of?
00:21:10.380It's a compilation of videos that were part of the overall footage that was obtained from the Utah Valley University as part of the investigation.
00:21:18.960And does that compilation video, from your point of view,
00:21:24.700capture Mr. Robinson arriving to and visiting the UVU campus?
00:21:42.940Does that video, and I'm referring to 12.1 exhibit, State's Exhibit 12.1, does it include all of the footage collected by the SBI from UVU?
00:21:58.440Does that video, again, 12.1, include all of the footage you collected from UVU that captures who you believe is Mr. Robinson walking around campus?
00:29:56.900Ms. Nestor, given that additional information and anything further from defense?
00:30:01.720Mr. Burt, he's the one who's been litigating all of the First Amendment issues,
00:30:08.640if he could address Mr. Ryman's argument?
00:30:12.220Yes. Mr. Burt, if you wouldn't mind coming forward.
00:30:18.960Judge, I wanted to clarify one argument that was made by Council for the Media yesterday,
00:30:25.180and that was the Rule 4-202.02 does not apply to the situation we're in right now, and that is wrong.
00:30:34.860The rule says that this rule applies to the judicial branch, and 4-202.02j says the judge may regulate or deny access to exhibits to ensure a fair trial.
00:30:54.760So I think that rule does apply to our situation, and the Supreme Court in the Algier-ALLG-IER case, 258 Pacific 3rd, 589, applied the rule in the context of an evidentiary exhibit.
00:31:12.040And I know the court has not mentioned since counsel made that argument this particular rule, but I think it does apply here.
00:31:17.940And also applicable is the Supreme Court's decision in the Kearns case, which we talked about when we argued the motion for denying access to the cameras.
00:31:27.260And that case, Kearns v. Tribune Corporation, 685 Pacific 2nd, 515, says that the standard the court ought to apply in determining whether an exhibit at a preliminary hearing should be sealed is one of a, quote, realistic likelihood of prejudice.
00:31:51.000And we rely on the evidentiary showing we've made in connection with our motion to exclude cameras,
00:31:57.840that there is a realistic likelihood of prejudice in this way.
00:32:02.680The court knows and has access to the media coverage up to the time when we litigated the motion concerning closing this hearing to the cameras.
00:32:12.080And the court knows that one feature of the media coverage has been a very pro-prosecution bias of every story that has been published on this account.
00:32:23.340The court also knows from that coverage that that information is being widely disseminated, and you have found in connection with the shackling issue that the publicity in this case is likely to reach jurors who will be part of our jury pool.
00:32:42.080And we've also submitted to the court a public opinion survey, which shows that the prejudicial publicity that the media has already generated in this case has affected the jury pool.
00:32:55.460And so those are all factors the court can point to and rely on and conclude that publication of this particular exhibit should not be allowed because there is a realistic likelihood of prejudice to Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial.
00:33:13.180So under that standard and under the rule, the court ought to deny publication.
00:37:15.440At the same time, the court also recognizes the importance of transparency and a proper
00:37:21.320balance to ensure that the Constitutional rights of all parties are upheld.
00:37:27.240As it relates to this exhibit, I believe it's 12.4, based off the representation of what
00:37:36.260is in that, the court differentiates this exhibit from the exhibits from yesterday, namely
00:37:43.560Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8, and Exhibit 9, as those are different in nature, and those go to issues relating to Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 28, as it relates to the Declaration of the Rights of Crime Victims.
00:38:08.380and the court also recognizes utah rule of evidence 1102 as it that is the foundation
00:38:16.620that's being laid for the admission of this exhibit having taken in consideration all factors
00:38:23.880the court rules that exhibit 12.4 is admitted into evidence and shall be played in the courtroom
00:38:32.900and may be broadcast by the media we can proceed thank you judge agent Hall
00:38:40.380before we actually watch States Exhibit 12.4 I have just a few questions yesterday
00:38:47.000you testified at the very beginning of your investigation that you focused on
00:38:51.980the video that captured the shooter on the top of the low C building is that
00:38:55.460correct yes I believe you also testified that you began by working your way and
00:39:01.040and this is what I remember you saying,
00:50:49.380This is an image looking across the parking lot to the Lossie building.
00:50:53.420And Mr. Robinson is appearing on the exterior staircase, which gives access to the Lossie building roof and the area where the railing was.
00:51:03.260And again, let's break that image into quadrants. Where would you be located if you broke it into quadrants?
00:51:09.100It's in the top right, and the individual can be seen moving under the notations that are on the video.
00:55:59.940And what did Officer Goforth tell you about that interaction?
00:56:04.100It was an interaction that, I guess cop intuition, but there was something about the interaction that made him make a note of the license plate of the vehicle.
00:56:15.340and then subsequently when information was available that that vehicle
00:56:21.920or a vehicle matching the description of that was involved in the incident,
00:56:26.860he ran the information that he had obtained from the stop
00:56:29.320and was able to identify that it was registered to Mr. Robinson
00:56:34.140and he had, in fact, had contact with Mr. Robinson on the morning of September 11, 2025.
00:56:39.980The information that he ran, when you say that, he ran information
01:00:23.780What can you tell us about the zooming in and the zooming out?
01:00:26.940Predominantly it's in the area that was referred to as viewing the low-sea building rooftop.
01:00:32.560I believe it focuses on the area where Mr. Robinson comes up the stairs and onto the rooftop.
01:00:40.580Those portions of that particular footage were zoomed in for clarity.
01:00:44.200other than other than zooming in and zooming out does does at least that
01:00:50.440enhancement to the video does it change the content of the video know the
01:00:56.260accuracy in the video of the video in your mind no
01:01:00.420Is the, are the enhancements in State's exhibit, well, it's been marked as State's exhibit 12.1, are they helpful in any way or what do they add or take away from that video?
01:01:27.220I think for people who are not familiar with the area and what's trying to be shown,
01:01:32.200they allow an opportunity for people to look at an individual who we believe to be Tyler Robinson
01:01:38.140and also specific movements with more clarity than the original focal point gives.
01:01:47.180So let's talk about the zooming in and the zooming out.
01:01:50.060It sounds like it's specific to the low-sea rooftop, if I understand you correctly.
01:03:02.880We renew our authenticity objection, and we also object to the, for admission purposes.
01:03:08.140And then we also object to the publication for the same reasons, the fair trial issues that we raised with the unaltered version that was just submitted.
01:03:19.760And, Judge, sorry, I neglected to mention the other two.
01:03:22.540Again, Judge, we believe that the presumption is that this is a public record, that it should
01:03:28.540be not only admitted, but it should be published here in the courtroom, and it should be published
01:03:33.160in such a way that the media can have access to it.