Episode 5496: Charlie Kirk's Assassination Trial Begins

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Bannon`s War Room – "Charlie Kirk's Assassination Trial Begins"

Episode 5496 | July 6, 2026

---

Overview

This episode presents comprehensive live coverage and analysis of the opening day of the preliminary hearing in Utah for Tyler Robinson, the alleged assassin of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The focus is on the evidentiary process, courtroom testimony, legal wrangling over evidence admissibility, and the emotional impact on those present, including Kirk's family. Host commentary and legal expert analysis provide context and interpretation throughout the day.

---

Major Discussion Points & Insights

1. Presentation & Admissibility of the Medical Examiner’s Report

(00:00 – 11:07)

• Prosecutors call Agent Hull to establish how the medical examiner’s report on Charlie Kirk’s death was received and its standard nature.
• Defense objects to the admission, arguing the report is hearsay and should be introduced by a qualified medical expert.
• The judge rules in favor of admissibility under Utah’s Rule 1102 allowing for reliable hearsay in preliminary hearings, but restricts its publication for privacy reasons.
• Correction is made regarding cause of death: the report lists “homicide” (not “murder”) caused by a “gunshot wound to the neck.”

Notable Quote:

“He does. Yes.” (Agent Hull confirming the report relates cause and manner of death, 09:12)

---

2. Firsthand Account of Shooting: Campus Police Testimony

(12:36 – 18:42)

• Officer Bagley recounts security duties at the University, describes Charlie Kirk’s arrival, and activities prior to the shooting.
• Describes the setting: thousands gathered for the event.
• Details the critical moment—hearing a gunshot at precisely 12:23pm, seeing Kirk react, then chaos erupting in the crowd.
• Bagley’s rapid response, confusion, and immediate on-scene assessment detailed.
• Finds empty pistol holster at the scene, notes the rifle shot was distinct and more violent.

Notable Quote:

“I heard a gunshot.” – Officer Bagley (16:00)
“It looks like a sniper pad, a person that has been laid in a prone position... markings of elbows, knees and feet to where somebody was in the line of sight.” – Officer Bagley (86:48)

---

3. Emotional Toll on the Family and Courtroom

(18:42 – 20:10, 85:27 – 88:34)

• News reports note the visible emotional impact on Kirk’s widow, Erica Kirk, who was seen crying and had to leave the courtroom.
• Donald Trump Jr. and Kirk’s parents among the supportive attendees.
• Commentators reflect on the emotional burden, especially for family members and the challenge jurors will face remaining impartial.

Notable Quote:

“When one witness talked about just the sound of the gunshot... Erica Kirk had to leave the courtroom.” – News Reporter (18:42)

---

4. Case Evidence & Forensic Controversies

(28:24 – 79:17, 86:22 – 87:10)

• Police detail the meticulous gathering and reviewing of hundreds of hours of surveillance and Ring doorbell footage.
• Prosecution identifies Tyler Robinson via surveillance, DMV records, and the vehicle described (silver Dodge Challenger).
• Disputes over the admissibility of a video compilation altered with zooms and highlights—judge requires an unaltered version for evidence.
• Ring footage places Robinson’s vehicle at the critical location shortly after the shooting.
• Forensic evidence: screwdriver with Robinson’s DNA found on the roof; expected testimony from multiple forensic experts.

Notable Quote:

“You had several thousand people... up along the cement... It was pretty packed.” – Officer Bagley (15:34)
“We have two witnesses who have watched the raw footage… these are all videos that are accurate, and they depict what the raw footage depicts other than those minor additions.” – Prosecutor Sturgill (48:00)

---

5. Legal and Evidentiary Wrangling

(30:46 – 53:12, 94:15 – 96:48)

• Judge sustains and overrules a series of objections—especially concerning in-court identification, hearsay, and video authenticity.
• Both defense and prosecution are deliberate and civil, focused on building an unimpeachable record for eventual appeals.
• Legal expert Wendy Patrick provides analysis of the challenges—explains that this is a “probable cause” hearing, which carries a lower burden than full trial, yet every evidence dispute is carefully preserved for the record.

Notable Quote:

“This is one of those cases where you do not want anything going wrong because you’re preserving this transcript for potential appeal.” – Wendy Patrick (81:02)

---

6. Probable Cause Hearing as a Substitute for Grand Jury

(22:00 – 23:48)

• The War Room host explains Utah’s evidentiary hearing process replaces the grand jury—public can observe the process, which functions to determine if sufficient evidence exists to move toward trial.
• Coverage continues throughout the week with plans for detailed legal and public commentary.

---

7. Political Dimension and Broader Cultural Impact

(88:34 – 99:19)

• Discussion on the political ramifications of the assassination—a warning against politically motivated violence.
• Analysis of how juror selection will seek to avoid partisan bias, yet the public narrative is already colored by partisanship.
• Host underscores the importance of this case as a touchstone for conservative political discourse and public safety.

Notable Quote:

“There’s got to be a layer on top of all of this that’s informed by... one side carries out violence to try to silence the other.” – News Anchor (88:34)

---

8. Defendant Identification and Court Procedure

(100:17 – 102:43)

• After repeated objections, Agent Hull identifies Tyler Robinson in court based on his review of surveillance and DMV records.
• Judge clarifies the limits of this identification for preliminary hearing only.

---

9. Logistics and Next Steps

(103:07 – End)

• Prosecution intends to present an unaltered version of disputed video evidence the following day.
• Court adjourns with the judge giving standard instructions to witnesses; proceedings to resume at 9am.
• Legal commentators anticipate a thorough but relatively prompt conclusion to the preliminary phase.

Notable Quote:

“They don’t charge [the death penalty] unless they believe they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And that’s not even the standard at a preliminary hearing.” – Wendy Patrick (108:28)

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes (with Timestamps)

• Cause of Death Correction:
  “It does say homicide.” – Agent Hull (10:54)

• Emotional Impact:
  “When one witness talked about just the sound of the gunshot... Erica Kirk had to leave the courtroom.” – News Reporter (18:42)

• Visual Evidence:
  “I observed Charlie going back, doing some meet and greet… then I heard a shot fired.” – Officer Bagley (14:43)

• Sniper Pad Discovery:
  “It looks like a sniper pad, a person that has been laid in a prone position…” – Officer Bagley (86:48)

• Political Context:
  “It does seem to be one sided. If you look at this administration, they’re going to worry that’s going to color the judgment.” – Wendy Patrick (89:35)

---

Key Timestamps for Reference

• Opening Evidentiary Disputes & Medical Examiner’s Report: 00:00 – 11:07
• Officer Bagley’s Testimony (Shooting and Chaos): 12:36 – 18:42
• Emotional Testimony & Family Reaction: 18:42 – 20:10, 85:27 – 88:34
• Footage Authentication & Legal Arguments: 28:24 – 53:12
• Ring Doorbell Evidence & Admissibility: 54:41 – 74:37
• Expert Legal Commentary (Wendy Patrick): 80:26 – 99:19
• Defendant Identification: 100:17 – 102:43
• Adjournment & Next Steps: 103:07 – End

---

Tone and Atmosphere

• Resigned, methodical courtroom atmosphere: civility emphasized even amid heated legal battles.
• Deep emotional undercurrent, especially regarding the Kirk family.
• Commentators remain analytical but occasionally openly partisan regarding broader cultural implications.
• Effort throughout to maintain transparency and preserve an impeccable record for potential appeal.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a raw, minute-by-minute window into one of the most significant political assassinations in recent U.S. history. Meticulous evidentiary battles, emotional testimonies, and the overarching political stakes are all on display. The hearing is far from over—significant evidence and testimony, including an unaltered surveillance video, are yet to come.

---

Transcript

[Judge]

To lay more foundation.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

That's certainly your choice. So you are aware that the medical examiner's office did conduct an autopsy?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I am, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, and did you receive a report from a medical examiner's office?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I did, yes.

[Courtroom Commentator/Host]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Detailing the. The autopsy that was performed?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. Prior to receiving the report, myself and Agent Davis visited with the doctor.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

You visited personally with the doctor that conducted the autopsy?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

That's correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, and then subsequent to that. And did you discuss the autopsy with the doctor at that point in time when you were meeting with him personally?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. Agent Davis and I had a fairly in depth conversation, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And where did that conversation take place?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

At the medical examiner's office.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Do you recall the date and time that that personal visit took place?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I don't recall.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Was it within.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It was soon after. Within. Within a few days of the incident of the autopsy? Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, and subsequent. Subsequent to that visit, did you receive a report from that. That doctor that you visited with?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

We did, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, and that's the Dr. Guajardo that you're trying. You're struggling to pronounce his name?

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Is that.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yeah, I apologize, but yes, that's who it is.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And the report that was sent to you, do you recall when you received that report?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I don't recall the specific date.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Have you reviewed that report?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Have you reviewed. Have you. Again, you stated earlier that this is not the first murder investigation you've worked.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

I take it this is not the first medical examiner's report you've received?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. The reports typically look the same.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. They're in a standard format that the medical examiner uses.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And this report that you received.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

From who you believe was the doctor you spoke to?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

That conducted the medical exam, was there anything peculiar about that particular report that stood out to you?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

No. It appeared to be a standard form as used by the medical examiner when they send us reports.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. On your monitor, exhibit 11, I'm gonna have displayed what's been marked, states exhibit number 11, judge for identification.

[Judge]

Right.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

I believe there's nine pages. So let me know when you see that on your screen.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It's on the screen.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

What I'd like you to do is just look at this as it scrolls down through the nine pages and wait till we get to the very end. And if you need us to pause or stop or slow down, let us know. I want you to be able to look at all my pages.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Did you get a look at that?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes, sir.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Do you recognize what that is?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

What is that?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

That's the Medical examiner's report of examination for Mr. Kirk.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Do you recall, you don't recall exactly when you received that?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I don't unfortunately remember the specific date when I received it.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Do you remember how you received that then?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Provided to us electronically via email. Sometimes via email. Also on disk, compact disc.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And does there appear to be anything in the exhibit before you? Has that report changed at all or does it accurately depict what you received initially from the doctor?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It accurately depicts.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

It does. The state would seek to admit Exhibit 11, Ms. Nestor.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Your Honor, this is an expert report without the expert being present, being offered by an individual who's not an expert in this field. If they're presenting him as an expert in this field based on the limited questions about his experience in seeing previous medical exam records, I'd like to for dire him on his. His qualifications to opine about it. This is hearsay. It's highly technical. It should be presented only through an expert. It could never come in in trial in any other way. We submit that it is hearsay. And to the extent they're going to ask this individual about any opinions about it, that would be improper. He's not qualified to do that. And furthermore, we just think that this is clearly falling under our constitutional concerns about the absence of our ab ability to be effective, to cross examine, to question the. We can't even question the experts experience or CV or anything that we would normally do to determine if this should even be accepted or considered by the court. And so we strenuously object to its admission and for all those reasons to its publication as well. There is also, there's some really personal things in there that shouldn't ever be published that are deal with Mr. Kirk's medical condition. History is the condition of his body. It shouldn't be published. Your honor.

[Judge]

Thank you. To this state, Judge Rudd.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

This is clearly reliable hearsay admissible under Rule 11 of 2 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. I would direct you specifically to subsection B5 for purposes of, and I'm quoting the rule for purposes of criminal preliminary examinations only. Reliable Hearsay includes subsection 5 specifically states medical and autopsy reports and records. Again, that is supported by Article 1, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution, which states that reliable hearsay can be relied upon at preliminary examination in whole or

[Judge]

in part to the second part in regards to publication.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

As far as the publication, Judge, we agree with Ms. Nestor. This is a document that does contain very sensitive information and information that Mr. Kirk's family would appreciate it not being published. So although we seek to admit It. We'd ask that it not be published here in the courtroom or that it be published in any fashion or way that the public can see it by virtue of a camera.

[Judge]

Ms. Nestor.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Your Honor, I just want to point out that even though 1102 has a provision about exams, I mean, the court still has the overarching mission under 1102 to make this reliability finding. Right. And, and it's just completely in a vacuum being offered by someone who's a police officer. So again, we would just argue that you're just not. It's. It's hampering you from making the analysis you need to make to admit it, and we object to it.

[Courtroom Announcer/Clerk]

All right.

[Judge]

Anything further from the parties?

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

No. You're on.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

No, sir.

[Judge]

All right. So again, relying upon the analysis, Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 12, as it relates to reliable hearsay, and then turning to Utah rules of evidence, Rule 1102 specifically notes medical and autopsy reports and records. The court is going to overrule the objection admit states exhibit. I believe it's 1111.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Yes, sir.

[Judge]

Citing to Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 28, dignity, portion, respect and dignity. It will not be published either in the courtroom or viewable on media by the. The camera for the reasons previously stated as it relates to the video. And so the court will receive it and it is admitted into evidence, and that concludes that portion. Mr. Sturgel, is this a good point to stop to take our 15 minute afternoon break?

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

I think it'd be a great idea. Judge, I've just got one last question.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

All right.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

With respect to the. The medical examiner's report, agent hole, in that report, does the doctor relate cause and manner of death?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

He does. Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And in that report, what is the stated cause of death?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It was stated as a murder and manner of death. It's a gunshot wound to the neck.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

I object. It's not stated as a murder. I believe it's stated as a homicide, which is an important distinction.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

So I'll go back and correct that.

[Judge]

All right, so. So I'm going to sustain. Well, first of all, let me look at the report. I need to see that section. I need to be able to draw my own conclusion, so. Okay, I. I see. Ms. Nestor, are you referring to page one of this report?

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Sorry, your honor. Could you repeat that? I apologize.

[Judge]

As it relates to your objection for the misstatements, are you looking at page one of the report?

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Yes. All right, your honor, I also need to make an objection on the best evidence rule too. Thank you.

[Judge]

All right, so I'm going To sustain the objection as it relates to the manner of death, it does not say murder. But in regards to the best evidence rule, again under 1102 and the Utah constitution that it permits reliable hearsay, it is states exhibit 11 is admitted. Mr. Sergil.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Agent Hull, I'm going to ask you to look at the first page of exhibit 11.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

No.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

You see that?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, so let me ask you again and you can look at it.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yeah.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And would you mind relating what the doctor reports is the manner of death.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. I misspoke. It does say homicide.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And then the immediate cause of death,

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

gunshot wound of the neck.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Nothing further, Judge. Well, at this moment, I think it'd be a great idea that we take a 15 minute break.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Right.

[Judge]

We'll go ahead and go on break. We'll come back at 3:25 and resume with this witness at that time. Court is in a brief recess.

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Now.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

The man accused of killing Charlie Kirk is in a Utah courtroom as prosecutors

[News Reporter]

present evidence against him.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

The hearing, a critical one for suspect Tyler Robinson, who's accused of fatally shooting the conservative activists last September.

[News Reporter]

This week, the judge will determine what evidence will be permissible in the trial, including a recorded statement by Robinson's former roommate, who is seen as a key witness. Some of Kirk's family members are attending today inside that courtroom. Those are his parent. Parents arriving earlier. His widow, Erica Kirk, also there.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay. I'm going to take you back to September 10, 2025. You mentioned you were on campus, you had a particular assignment.

[Courtroom Commentator/Host]

Yes.

[Judge]

Mr. Grenada, I'm sorry.

[News Reporter]

Let's.

[Judge]

We're just going to pull down the exhibits. Okay, thank you. You may continue.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Would you like me to take this exhibit down, Judge? Are we.

[Judge]

Are you referring to it in your line of questioning right now?

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Not right now or not?

[Judge]

Okay, let's go ahead and take it.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

So you were. You were securing the hall of Flags walkway, correct?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yes.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

On the south end?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yes.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

What was happening that morning that day on campus at uvu?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

I came in to do a shift for a special event that. Where we had a guest speaker come in and was going to talk to the students and people around the neighborhood.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Do you know who the guest speaker was?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

I do.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

And who was that?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

It was Charlie Kirk.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Did you see Mr. Kirk that day?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

I did.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

When did you first see him?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

When he arrived on campus, just behind the west side of the hall of Flags. I saw him pull up.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

And can someone access the courtyard in that through that area?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yes, they can.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

How?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

So where he pulled up underneath the hall of Flags is a Opening where you could drive a car underneath, so there's access right there. You could walk or drive underneath the hall of Flags.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

And you saw him arrive?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yes.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay. Can you describe what you were. What you were seeing?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

What did you observe on that day? I observed Charlie going back, doing some meet and greet with some people, getting some photos taken. He then came underneath the haul flags and went to his tent, and he was there answering questions and talking to individuals that would ask him questions.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

The tent you're referring to, is that the tent that we see when it was set up in the courtyard?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yeah, that Y square tent, the white top? Yes. He would know that.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Fast forward to about. About 1220 or so. So a little bit after noon, the noon hour. What happened? What did you see and what did you hear?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

I heard an individual talking to Charlie and I happened to kind of glance over the edge of the railing about that time. I could see the right side of Charlie's shoulder, so not his whole body, because I had that. He was underneath the tent, so I could only see probably the right side of his body. He was answering a question. Kid asked him a question, and then I heard a shot fired.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Do you know what time that was?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yes.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

What time was that?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

12:23. What did you see at that moment? I saw him lean to the left. So I.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

When you say him, you see Charlie.

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Charlie. So I saw him go to the left because I could no longer see the right side of his body. So he went further underneath the tent to the north side of the tent, so left.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay. Can you describe the reaction of others that were there?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yeah. So then everybody started getting up and starting to run and more of a chaos kind of situation.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Before you continue, can you describe a little bit? So you mentioned Mr. Kirk was answering questions, talking to individuals. Yes. Were there others present?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yes.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Any idea about approximately how many? How would you describe it in your terms?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

In my terms, I'd say when I was up there looking down, I'd say there were several thousand people because you had it on the grass that was jam packed in the amphitheater, sitting on the grass. You had people standing on the back, up along the cement. You had people that were on the second level, the Sorenson and over by the Woodbury building. There's another level there where a lot of people are standing and watching. So it was. It was pretty packed, several thousand people.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

You mentioned. So you mentioned you heard something. What did you hear again?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

I heard a gunshot.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay. And can you describe the. You described Mr. Kirk's reaction. Was that simultaneous to hearing the gunshot?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yes.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

It was when he fell to the left?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yes.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Did you see the reaction from the crowd?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yes.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

What was that?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Everybody kind of got up. They all said a lot of people were screaming, standing up, and starting to run in all different directions Away from the center of the tent.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay, you're a police officer helping to secure the area, correct?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yes. What did you do at that moment? I recognize it as gunfire. I left my post, which was right there on the south end of the hall of flags. I proceeded to between right where the fugal and the hall of flags meet. There's some outside stairs that I was starting to run down. As I was trying to get down to the bottom of the stairs, People are running up. People are laying down on the steps. I'm trying to jump over people to get to the bottom of the stairs so I can help stop an individual that's probably shooting.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

What happened next?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

By the time I got to the bottom of stairs, I was informed on the radio that we had a shooter in custody. So I thought at that moment, I was like, oh, that was kind of fast. Obviously, it was close range, probably because we had an individual in custody. Another officer came on, said we had an individual in custody. So I decided to. Since the threat is gone now, I can assess for anybody that's injured and start looking for any medical needs that's needed. At that moment, I started canvassing the area. As I canvassed the area, I was looking for anybody that was injured. I saw a kid on the ground that was on about the second or third tier in the grass next to a wheelchair, and he was almost convulsing. I thought he'd maybe been shot. Talked to the dad as I was running over there. He said that he was just having a seizure, that he was fine, he was not injured. So at that moment, I observed that there was no other injuries that I could see at that moment.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay, did. Did. Was your attention drawn to anything else at that time?

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Yeah. So after we got some people kind of cleared away a little bit, I thought I needed to start preserving the scene because we had a crime scene. And with some of my experience and training to that effect of, I decided now we need to contain the scene and help preserve as much evidence as we can. So I started pushing people off the grass out of the courtyard area Because I knew that's where the crime scene was. So as we started pushing those guys out, my chief, Chief long, that was right next to me, I looked down and saw an empty pistol holder that was sitting just on top of the grass. At that moment, things had died down. Just a split second, I realized that the shot I heard was more of a rifle shot and not a pistol shot.

[News Reporter]

Our producer who is inside, she says that Donald Trump Jr. Is inside that courtroom along with Erica Kirk, Charlie Kirk's parents, a few supporters with them, listening to, as you say, emotional testimony. Erica Kirk has been very emotional already. She's been seen crying. When one witness talked about just the sound of the gunshot, we're not even talking about how it looked, just the sound. This witness described the rifle shot being more violent than a popular you would get from a handgun. At this point, Erica Kirk had to leave the courtroom. So this, as you say, is a probable cause hearing. It's not a trial. It looks a bit like a trial in that there are witnesses and cross examination, but it's not. It is the prosecution trying to say we have probable cause, trying to persuade the judge to take this to a full trial scheduled to last all week. One of the key pieces of evidence that we believe the prosecution is going to put forward, guys, is a deposition, a tape deposition from Tyler Robinson's roommate, slash romantic partner, and that there was communications between Robinson and this partner after the shooting that the prosecutors basically say is tantamount to a confession. The roommate asked Tyler Robinson, was it wasn't you that did it? Right. And the reply from Robinson was, yeah, I'm sorry, it was me. Charlie Kirk was spreading too much hate.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

If things move forward with this preliminary hearing as expected, how soon can we expect the trial to begin?

[News Reporter]

Well, that is unclear. This judge has been very methodical. Now, we expect he might give a ruling on Friday as to whether the trial will proceed. But judging by his previous performance, I would say that he might delay that. But that is his decision to make. All the evidence goes to him. It's presented to him. He decides, yep, we've got enough for a trial or no so far. You see on the stand there, if you're still showing that picture, that is a man who was a university, a Utah Valley University campus police officer on the day of the shooting, September 10th last year. And he described hearing this pop, this gunfire that I mentioned just before this rifle pop. He said he could tell where it was coming from. He said after he heard that gunshot, he went down. He surveyed the scene to see if there's anybody injured who he could help. There wasn't. He then went to the roof where he believes the gunshot came from. And up there, he found a screwdriver on that roof, which is part of the prosecution evidence, they say Tyler Robinson's DNA is on that and also on, for example, the rifle. Now the defense will say there's a bunch of DNA, DNA on that rifle. And that is why probably they are calling three forensic evidence experts to testify at this preliminary hearing. So it's going to go on all week. It will be emotional. It's been emotional already. And you know, you've got Donald Trump Jr. And Erica Kirk in there watching the prosecution try and prove probable cause, try and get to probable cause. And don't forget the prosecution has said in this case, guys, that they will be seeking the death penalty against now 23 year old Tyler Robinson.

[Courtroom Commentator/Host]

Okay, fascinating testimony, remember or not remember in the state of Utah, this takes the place, this evidentiary hearing takes the place of essentially a grand jury. So you're like sitting in almost like a grand jury that you can view and weigh and measure. And there's been some fascinating testimony already. We've, we've got a couple of experts that when we have time hearing Real America's Voice, we will get in. Jack Posobeck is in the courtroom. Can't step up. The courtroom's on a short break. It's supposed to commence in about four minutes. And we will go back obviously to our live wall to wall coverage of this. We think as a channel, Real America's Voice and of course the War Room, that it is very important for this audience to see it all and to hear it all. And obviously it's generated a lot of interest so far because of the Charlie Kirk was not only a great man and so important to our cause, but was a great American and was a role model for so many people throughout the world, particularly young people that you got to get to the bottom of this. And so that is what this is today and evidential hearing. The judge has been very, I think you can say that methodical. They're going to go now just for your own planning purposes, they're going to go and I'll do this on east coast time. They're going to go from 11 o' clock in the morning of which we will give our turn our coverage over to 11 o' clock in the morning until approximately 7:00pm Eastern Daylight Time every evening. There'll be a lunch break around 2pm Ironically, when the Jack Posobic show is supposed to go. And of course we've got Kevin Posobec out there. Jack's in the courtroom. We will then there's going to be at least I think one break in the afternoon they're taking that break right now. We're going to go back, I think in a few minutes to the courtroom and to continue to listen and hear and view whatever evidence that they can. They feel that they're going to allow the public to actually see. So we're gonna go to that. So much other breaking news today. The most important, it looks like a woman has come forward, I think a former girlfriend or former romantic partner or partner of, or at least somebody dated of the nominee. So really the nominee because the governor dropped out or suspended her campaign in The Senate race, U.S. senate race in the state of Maine. Platnar, the former Marine, quite controversial. She said that against her consent, they had he forced himself upon her. There were pretty dramatic sexual allegations. He's put out a videotape that he was drunk and didn't know what he's doing. However, they're already they have a deadline. I think by next Monday, the 13th, they have to declare that there could be somebody else coming the race, et cetera, and or the governor renew her contest. Remember, Platinum right now, at least on the polling is up six or seven points. At least that's what certain polls saying. So this is the entire mainstream media, which CNN and MSNBC are not covering the trial. They kind of dip in and out where they have people out there covering, but they're not showing it so that you can watch it. And I think that's the only way to view it is just to do this, just to hunker down and get into it to the entire day. Want to thank our sponsors because we're going to hone them in advance for the next couple of days, particularly Birch Gold. Want to thank Birchgold. They've got the special. It runs through the 10th and that would be take your phone. I think the easiest thing to do is text Bannon B A N N O N 989-898. You get direct access to Philip Patrick's team. Talk to them with a qualifying purchase right now. Qualifying purchase, you can get a free 1 oz silver round. It's not a coin, but a round that's to I think July 10th. So let's make sure we get on top of that and that you can get that with a qualifying purchase. Talk to Philip Patrick and the team also. Allfamilypharmacy.com Bannon make sure you go check it out. Bannon they have a buy one, get one free. That goes to July 7th. So let's get on top of that. I think I told you tomorrow it was the 10th it's actually the seventh. So that is buy one, get one free. You get access to, you know, licensed professionals, pharmacists, licensed medical professionals get you the prescriptions that you need when you need them. They get overnight in the, in the mail. So make sure you check out the team. Allfamilypharmacy.com Bannon buy one, get one free. Very special 4th of July, 250th anniversary offer. And we want to make sure all America's health share. This is a very different way to think about your health insurance. And obviously with this fiasco of Obamacare, there are many Americans can no longer afford or feel they can afford health insurance. Go to freedomforhealth.org Bannon that's freedomforhealth. You get a free month if you sign up. This is one you're going to do a little due diligence, but I think quite some, you'll be quite surprised of the coverage you can get for the amount of money severely discounted for what healthcare is. So make sure that you, you go check it out and check that out today. Like I said, let's go back to the coverage of Charlie Kirk. Obviously very disturbing. Erica Kirk is in the audience. Charlie's, I think Charlie's parents are there. That's fine. Don Jr. We're going to go to break. We're going to take a break here in a moment. The court hasn't come back. If they come back, we will cut right out of break. Don Jr. Is there. Okay. They're finally back in right now. Our own Jack Posobic is actually in the courtroom, very restricted on what he can do. We were trying to get Jack to step out during these breaks. So that's just not, not, not possible. People are falling back in. Of course, the judge. Let's go ahead and go there. Speaking. I think we go to the, let's go to the courtroom right now, live.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

What, if anything else did you do on the 10th of September, 2025?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Primary focus was to identify the individual who'd been seen on the roof with the preliminary footage. And so there was a, a big effort to review as much of the video that we had available to us from both the public, but predominantly from Utah Valley University in an effort to follow that individual both forward and backwards from the time of the shooting.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, so if I understood you correctly, priority was to identify the shooter.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And to that end, you started reviewing even more UVU video than you've already described, correct?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. What, if anything else, either did you do or happened Initially, that helped you identify who that shooter was.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

So there was hundreds of hours of video that was reviewed, but the predominant focus, again, was on tracking the individual from the roof either after the shooting had occurred or trying to trace the steps of the individual prior to the shooting. And we were able to do that through a combined effort of individuals. And the focus was having people reviewing video identify people who could fit the original description of the individual that jumped off the roof

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

at that point. So at this point, approximately how many hours of UVU video do you think you personally had seen or watched?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Myself, maybe 10 or 20 hours of video being called in to look at different camera angles and different views of individuals. But there were. There was a large team of people reviewing video.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Reviewing video?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yeah.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

From NVU or some of them. SBI agents?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And combined, how much video do you think you watched that first day?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

On the 10th, it would be in the tens or hundreds of hours of video was reviewed.

[Courtroom Announcer/Clerk]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Did anything else come along that helped you identify who that shooter might be?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yeah. Eventually, on the Evening of the 11th, we received word from Washington county that an individual in that area had reached out to law enforcement and was wanting to turn themselves in for the incident at uvu.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, and did you, at that point in time, did you receive a name from Washington County?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes, we did.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And what was that name?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Tyler Robinson.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

What, if anything, did you do with that information, the name Tyler Robinson?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

That information was given to our SIAC or our State Information and Analysis Group, and they put together what would be called a workup. So they would look at driver's license records, DMV records, to determine addresses, obtain pictures of individuals, and then any associated vehicles or things like that.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

So was that done with Mr. Robinson?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It was, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Driver's license record was pulled, yes. Did that include, if you remember, or do you know, did that include a photograph of Mr. Robinson?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It did include a photograph of Mr. Robinson, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

How about an address and date of birth?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

There was an address and a date of birth and I believe a DMV record with an associated vehicle.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

All right, so that DMV record did include a vehicle that was associated with Mr. Robinson?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Do you remember what the make and model of the vehicle was that was tied to Mr. Robinson?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Dodge Challenger.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Anything else beyond that that you remember

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

was silver in color. And I believe there were. There were two registered owners of the vehicle.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, and who are the registered owners?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Mr. Robinson and then his mother.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Do you recall whether or not a date of birth was included in that driver's License information that you got initially?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yeah, I believe the actual driver's license record was shared, so it would have included a date of birth.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

All right.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

With Mr. Well, with Tyler Robinson's personal information, were you able to expand your search at all?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. Once we knew a vehicle that we were looking for and we had an actual image of the individual, then we were able to use that video footage to try and track that specific individual.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And I'm sorry, let me clarify. So when I said expand your search, I'm referencing the UVU surveillance video.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes, we were able to.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And were you able to identify in that expanded search, or did you believe you located that Challenger?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

We did, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Were you able to determine at what time or times Mr. Robinson visited the UVU campus on September 10th?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yeah, we were able to establish that Mr. Robinson had been on campus approximately four times throughout the day, twice before the shooting, the time of the shooting, and then after the shooting, later in the evening, into the early hours of the 11th.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

You. You said that you initially tracked the shooter forward and backward with. With UVU surveillance video.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Did you do the same thing with that vehicle?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

We did, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Tracked it forward and backward?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. Using the UVU footage and additional information that was obtained? Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And I believe you said that in total, Mr. Robinson visited the UVU campus four times that day?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes, that's correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And let's just be clear. That's all based on UVU surveillance video. Is that fair to say that's correct?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Have you. Have you reviewed what's been marked states exhibit 12.1 for identification?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I have, yes.

[Judge]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And. Well, let me. Before we go there, of. Of the video that you have personally watched, did. Does the video include the 10th and the 11th or just the 10th?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

The video I've seen includes the 10th and then a very small portion, I think about 00:30 of the 11th.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

I think you said initially you watched about 20 hours of video.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Since that time, have you watched additional video?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

UVU surveillance video?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And who provided the UVU surveillance video to you?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It was part of the collection of videos that was provided by Mr. Olson and his team that we already discussed previously.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Of the. Of all the hours of video that you've watched, do you have an idea of how many hours include Mr. Robinson or his vehicle?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Just with UVU or just with UVU? I'm sorry, just with UVU would probably be about 16 hours.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And let's be clear. This is someone you believe to be Tyler Robinson.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And this Person that you've identified as Tyler Robinson that you've been investigating and that you view and the. The numerous hours of video from uvu, Would you recognize that person if you were in the courtroom today?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Is he in the courtroom today?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

He is, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Would you point him out and describe something that he's wearing?

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Your Honor, we object to unduly suggestive in court identification for constitutional ground.

[Judge]

Do you wish to specify an unduly constitutional. I'm trying to understand your objection, so I want to make sure I fully understand.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Your Honor, I think there's some, you know, deferred to. To. To Mr. Bird if he wants to jump in. But I believe there's a long line of case law that says, and you ask someone to identify the defendant when they're the only person, you know, sitting at the table with defense counsel, that. That's unduly suggestive and taints any future or past. Well, definitely future identification. So we object to that happening in this fashion at this time.

[Judge]

Mr. Sturgill.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Judge, agent Hull has testified that he has watched numerous hours of video. Well, take a step back. He has. He has looked at personal identifying information of an individual by the name of Tyler Robinson. He's looked at the driver's license record, and he's also looked at the DMV records and has been able to determine what car that person drives. He's also looked at surveillance video that he believes depicts this Tyler Robinson. And I've simply asked him if that person that he has seen both in driver's license photos and the surveillance video, if that person is here in the courtroom today. And I don't know that that's unduly prejudicial or suggestive. It's the routine. I don't know of any other way to do it other than the way I just did it.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Judge.

[Judge]

Well, I wanted to verify the format of the question I remembered in my mind, but. Ms. Nestor, was that an accurate portrayal of the question that was asked?

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

Yes.

[Judge]

Okay. Mr. Sturgill, anything further before I issue my ruling?

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Well, no, other than. Judge, I believe it's worth noting that Mr. Rober Robinson is in plain clothes. Well, he's.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Yeah.

[Judge]

Council approached the bench.

[Courtroom Commentator/Host]

It.

[Judge]

All right. Based off what's been presented in court, I'm not finding that particular question as previously posed as suggestive. I find for the purposes of this hearing only that in court, identification by agent Hull of Mr. Robinson has been made. Again, this only relates to the preliminary hearing. And you may proceed.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Thank you, Judge. Agent Hull, have you reviewed what's been marked stakes exhibit 12.1 for identification?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I have, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And where did you review that video?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Was provided to me. I reviewed it on my computer in my office.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And is that the first time that you've seen this particular video footage?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

This particular version of the footage, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, so this particular version. The first time. But have you seen the video that. Comprises, I guess, exhibit 12.1?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I have seen the original videos, if that's your question. Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

So what states Exhibit 12.1? How would you describe it?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I would describe it as a compilation of the video that we obtained from Utah Valley University during the course of the investigation that depicts the movements of the individual, I believe to be Mr. Robinson, moving around the campus on September 10, 2025, into the morning of September 11, 2025.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Did you prepare this video compilation?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I did not.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Do you know who did?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. Utah County Attorney's office. I believe Ms. Derfler is the one that produced the video.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Do you know Ms. Derfler's first name?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Kimberly.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, what, if anything, did you do to authenticate the video in this compilation?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I reviewed the video to make sure that it was a reflection of what I understood the original videos to show.

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

What, if anything, else, did you do?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I. I reviewed it. I know that there was some. Some zooms and some changes to the footage.

[Courtroom Commentator/Host]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Did you meet with Mr. Olson with regards to this particular video?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. This video was also part of that original meeting with Mr. Olson for the prior exhibit? Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, so at the same time, you sat down with Mr. Olson and discuss the prior exhibit. And let's just be clear which exhibit that is. So I believe the. Well, the 1102 statement that you gathered from him is exhibit 12.3, correct?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

So at the same time that you gathered that 12.3 or that written statement that is stakes exhibit 12.3, you talked to him about this specific exhibit as well?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. Mr. Olson was shown this exhibit.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And did he include that in that 1102 statement?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yeah, I believe he specifically referenced the exhibit by name, stating that it was a true reflection of the footage from the campus.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And let's just go back to what you were stating earlier. To you, it appears to be a compilation of videos that you've already seen.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

That you received as a mass dump. I guess, for lack of a better term, if you view video, is that fair to say?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

The exhibit 12.1, does it appear to be the same as the raw video that you've seen previously?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It does. Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Are there. Are there some Minor. Are there any added additions or anything different about this particular exhibit?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

There are some portions of the video where a zoom is initiated which wasn't a function of the cameras. I believe some specific individuals have been blurred from the footage, and I believe there are some red circles to show poignant information or individuals within the footage itself.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, so other than the red circles, the blur, and the zoom, does it appear to accurately depict what you've seen in the raw video footage?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I believe so, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

On your screen, I'm going to have displayed an image. Let me know when you see it.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

That image is there now it's gone again.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Is it there?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

We're back.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, we're back. So do you recognize what this is?

[News Reporter]

Yeah.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

This is the first frame of the video compilation that we just referenced.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And again, this video portrays what you believe is Mr. Robinson visiting campus that day.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Is it throughout the day?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It is, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And then I believe he said into the early morning hours of the 11th. Is that right?

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Justice State would seek or would move to admit was been mark states exhibit 12.1.

[Judge]

Ms. Nestor.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Your Honor, we have objections to its admissibility. The. This is a compilation video that was put together from a bunch of different sources by the county attorney's office. This individual did not create this compilation, can't testify to the accuracy of the actual materials that it was taken from. And furthermore, Mr. Olson himself is just referred to by Agent Hall. He specifically says people have altered these recordings. They've zoomed in when the. When the actual recording isn't zoomed. They've added little circles to people they want to pay attention to you. They blurred people's faces out. So, I mean, it's been clearly altered, and it's not. I mean, they admit it's been altered, so we have real concern about authenticity of it. Furthermore, this particular video should be protected. And so that deals with the admissibility factor as far as the publication factor of it. The video should be classified as protected under UCJA 202 4.202.02, subsection 5j, as in jelly bean and then little I and little double I. Because this is going to interfere with the defense's ongoing investigation, with Mr. Tyler's ability. I mean, with Mr. Robinson's ability to get a fair trial. This is basically putting together photos that are clear with photos that aren't clear, putting them all together in such a format that it makes the case that it's all one person. It would be extremely prejudicial for people that may ultimately serve on this jury to watch this video before this case goes to trial. We don't believe a proper foundation's been laid which would make it admissible at this point. So the fact that it would be shown to the public would be extremely damaging to the ability to put on a defense at trial. And so we object to its publication both in the courtroom and to the media. Your Honor.

[Judge]

Mr. Sturgill.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Judge, Ms. Nestor is correct. This is a compilation of a series of videos. The. The. The videos, as detector of, as Sergeant Hull has testified to, is it's a compilation of raw videos that he has received from Utah Valley University. And he has not only seen this video, but he has seen all the raw footage. And by his estimation, or according to his testimony, these are all videos that are accurate, and they depict what the raw footage depicts other than those minor additions. Judge, if you refer to Mr. Olson's written statement, it's plaintiff's exhibit 12.3. He, too, has reviewed this video, and he has also identified this video as being accurate, with the exception of those additions. In his words, it's the zooms and the red highlights. They weren't part of the original recording, according to Mr. Olson. But other than that, as he states, the same as Agent Hull, these videos are accurate and they were captured by UVU surveillance video.

[Judge]

Do you have a version of this video that does not have alterations such as zooming or circling? My concern is that if the 1102 says what it says about the videos, these were the videos, but then it was altered, and typically an exhibit which has been altered, and if it wasn't done by the person who supplied the 1102, that. That can become problematic. And so do you have a version of this exhibit that does not have the zooming in or the circling? Again, I don't know all the alterations that were made, but that seems to fall outside the 1102 because you don't have a person testifying 1102, saying, I made the alterations. And so that's the concern of the state of what Ms. Nestor was talking about as it relates to the state's evidence. I have that concern about those alterations. Again, I don't know when they were made, what they were made, how much was was done to manipulate the video. And I say manipulate to not saying in a nefarious way, But I don't know what the scope of that is and how much it deviates from what was the original form.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Judge, to answer your first question, do we have a version of this particular video that has not been altered. We don't. Not right now. Not today. I guess there's a. Well, there's a couple of things I'd simply like to point out, Judge, and that is that we have two witnesses who have watched the raw footage. And Agent Hole here today on the stand, and Mr. Olson, in the form of his written statement. They have both said that this video, with the exception of these alterations, accurately depicts the video that was captured by UVU surveillance video. Judge, I will proffer that those changes made to the video were not done by either. I know who that person is. We could actually call that person as a witness if that would cure that, and we're prepared to do that if necessary. But, Judge, I think that our burden is to simply authenticate what this is. And it is a video that, with only a few exceptions, alterations that really don't change the substance of the video or the content of the video, they're accurate. They depict what the cameras captured on September 10th and the 11th. And we have two people who have seen that raw footage, and they've explained. That's the only difference between what we have originally in the original videos and what you're seeing here today. And the additions I'll submit, Judge, were only added to make it easier to view.

[Judge]

All right. Anything further from the parties? All right, I'm going to go ahead, and I'm sustaining the objection. Typically, when exhibits are admitted to the court, it is without alteration if a party circles an exhibit, a photograph, that's not the original format, and I do not have the person who made the alteration an 1102 to substantiate that. And what I have is the original video and Mr. Olson saying, this is the video minus the alterations. And we have Agent Hull saying this is the video, and there are alterations, but I'm missing a link. And it may be minor, but in this type of case, I want to be thorough and I want to make sure that what is minor is still important. And for those reasons, I'm going to sustain the objection and. And leave it to the parties on how you wish to handle the video in the future. I don't want to provide guidance either way.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Right.

[Judge]

But as it stands today, this exhibit states exhibits 12.1 is not admitted.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Judge, could I have just one moment?

[Judge]

You may.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Agent Hull, you testified that there were four visits to campus that day, correct?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And the first three visits, based on what you have observed, it's your opinion that those videos were captured by UVU surveillance video. Is that correct?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

That is correct, yes.

[Judge]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

The fourth visit. Well, the fourth visit 2 was captured by UV surveillance video, is that correct?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. Was there any other video that was collected either on the 10th or the 11th that you believe might be important or relevant to today's hearing?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

There was a large amount of video.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

I'm going to be a little bit more specific. Other than UVU surveillance video, was there any other video that you collected and subsequently gathered an 1102 statement for?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. We collected ring doorbell footage from the surrounding neighborhoods.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, let me ask you this. Did that include video from. A residence at located at 680 West 925 South Orem?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. That's in the Horseshoe area? Yep.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. That's in Orem.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And close to campus?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It is, yes.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And what can you tell us about that video?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

There was a ring doorbell video that was provided that showed a vehicle consistent with the one we had identified as belonging to Mr. Robinson parking in front of the residence across the street.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And what can you tell us about the timing and the. Well, the timing of that. That parked vehicle?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

If I recall, that vehicle parked approximately 00:38 hours on the morning of the 11th.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, so 00:38 hours. What time is that? To regular people,

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Just after midnight.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

At 12:38am in the morning?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, so how did this video come to your attention? That you're talking about this doorbell or whatever?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

This footage was obtained as part of the canvas of the area that was conducted as part of the investigation.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Were you able to identify the owners of that residence?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Where that video was collected from?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And do you know who it was collected from?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

And BY Whom was Mr. And Mrs. Noble? I believe Agent Davis collected the video directly from them.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And do you know what date it was collected?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

If I can refresh from my notes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

If referring to your notes will refresh your memory, go ahead and look at that. Don't read it out loud.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I don't have the specific date, but I do know that myself and Agent Davis returned to the address as we had done with previous videos. And had the owners of the video verify that it was from their system. And we did have them complete an 1102 statement, which would be dated. Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Do you know. So let's talk about this. What does this video look like?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It's a nighttime view looking from the front porch of the residence across the street.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And what about that video? Why was this particular video significant to you or why do you think it was related to this case?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

We know from the UVU footage that the person we believe to be Mr. Robinson had an interaction with law enforcement. And a short period after that, the vehicle comes to that house. And some additional evidence that was collected from cell phone data and things indicated that Mr. Robinson was in the area. And we were able to locate the footage of his vehicle on that ring

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

doorbell, camera, or at least what you believe is his vehicle.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

The vehicle we believe to belong to Mr. Robinson.

[Courtroom Commentator/Host]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And is there something about this particular video and this vehicle that was captured that leads you to believe that it was Mr. Robinson's vehicle?

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Yeah.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

The vehicle has very distinct wheels. I won't say that they're wholly unique, but in terms of the video footage that we were reviewing, the wheels on the vehicle are fairly unique and stand out on the video footage.

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Okay,

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

so again, this is video that you received early on in the investigation.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And then in. In preparation for the preliminary.

[Advertiser/Commercial Voice]

Buy gold and put some silver in your pocket. I know what you're thinking. Everything's expensive right now. How am I going to buy gold? Pull your head out of the sand. One thing you can control right now that doesn't cost you anything out of pocket is diversifying your retirement savings. Birch Gold Group will help you convert an old 401k from a previous employer or an IRA into a physical gold IRA. Let me repeat that. Birch Gold will help you now convert an old 401k from a previous employer or an IRA into a physical IRA in gold. You know something? That's a hedgehog against inflation. Listen to this. Right now, Birchgold is going to give you a special America 2501 ounce silver round for every $10,000 you purchase by July 10th. Let me repeat this. With every $10,000 purchase, you get a free 1 ounce silver round. America 250 commemoration. A special. Think about this. Ten years ago, an ounce of gold was about $1200. Today it's around $4,500. Where will it be in ten years from now? Text Bannon B A N N O N 989898 to take advantage of free America 250 silver with qualifying purchase before the 10th of July. Again, text my name, Bannon B A N N O n to number 989898. Today, take advantage of this offer. With qualifying purchases, you get a silver round. A 1 oz silver round. Check it out.

[Courtroom Commentator/Host]

Qualifying purchase. You got to do it before July 10th. Do it today.

[Advertiser/Commercial Voice]

Why wait till you're down to your last pill stuck, traveling or dealing with a packed pharmacy when you can already have your medications on hand? Seriously, you know what you normally take you already know what your family could need. That makes no sense. Smart families don't operate like that. That's why I love all family pharmacy. They're built a better, simpler system. To get your prescription medications, you go online, fill out a quick medical form. Licensed doctors review your request. Prescribe if appropriate, and your medications are stripped directly to your door. No waiting rooms, no pharmacy lines, no insurance. Nonsense. People are traveling more schedules are getting crazier. And have your medications already on hand just makes your life easier. Because being prepared isn't paranoia, it's common sense. Go visit my [e-mail] that's one word. Allfamilypharmacy.com Bannon and use code Bannon10 to save 10% on your next order. Again, that's allfamilypharmacy.com Bannonand use code Bannon10. Everyone's focus on how the conflict in the Middle east is raising oil prices. But there's another grim reality to this contention. Oil isn't the only resource being constrained. About one third of global fertilizer trade happens through this region. And with spring planting season on top of us, American farmers are sounding the alarm with some saying they can't afford to plant their fields. When one piece of the supply chain gets hit this hard, you know what comes next? Higher fruit prices, reduced availability, maybe even panic buying. That's why having an emergency food supply at home makes so much sense. And that's where our friends at my Patriot supply come in right now at preparewithbannon.com that is preparewithbannon.com we've set up an entire just site for the war room posse. You go to preparewithbannon.com that's all one word. Preparewithbannon.com you get a three month emergency food supply. They'll include a free mega protein Upgrade, an incredible $200 bonus you don't want to miss. It's a simple way to protect your family from whatever comes next. Go to preparewithbannon.com that is preparewithbannon.com to get your emergency food supply today. That's preparewithband.com do it today, go check it out.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

You meet with about this video met

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

with Mrs. Noble and what did you

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

do with Ms. Noble?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

We did what we had done before. We had a specific file that we wanted or files that we wanted her to verify. The footage itself is broken into I believe 10 second segments. So we had specific files that we had her view and confirm that they were actually from her system. Those were written on the 1102 as they have been before.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And who wrote those file names on this particular statement?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I believe it would be my handwriting on the 1102.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

All right, what did you do next?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

We had view the videos and then complete a statement verifying the. The authenticity of those videos on an 1102.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Was this also prepared on a State Bureau form?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I believe this was on a State Bureau investigations form, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And in this particular form on which Ms. Noble provided her statement, does it have the advisory that it would be used in lieu of her testimony here today?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It does, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Does it also contain a warning that if she gave a false statement, she would be punished or it's punishable by a class A misdemeanor?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay,

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

I'm gonna have displayed on your monitor what's been marked states exhibit number 13, identification. Let me know when you see that, would you?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I can see that.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And I'm going to have my assistant scroll through that slowly.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Do you recognize that?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I do. Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

What is that?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

The 1102 that myself and Agent Davis collected from Ms. Noble.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And it appears. Does it appear to be in the same condition as when you collected it?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It does, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

This is a copy, right?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And the personal identifying information appears to be redacted, is that right?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It has been red. Redacted, yes.

[Courtroom Announcer/Clerk]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

It wasn't redacted when you collected it, right?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

No, no, the original form was not redacted.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

So other than the redactions, it appears to be in the same conditions it was when you collected it?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

That is correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

State would move to admit exhibit 13, Ms. Nester.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Honor, we renew our concern about unconstitutional hearsay being admitted. We also have the same concerns about the fact that the Ms. Agent hole amended this himself, and there's no foundation as to when he filled that in, if it was before or after she signed it. And due to all those reasons, we object to its admission and object to

[Judge]

its publication as well, Mr. Sturgill.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Judge, again, it was collected in compliance with Rule 1102 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, specifically subsection B8. It's in writing, it's on a form. It includes both the advisory and the warning, and it was collected by Agent Hull. It's also collected in compliance and being introduced as reliable hearsay, which is lawful to do here in Utah.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Utah.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Under the State Constitution, Article 1, Section

[Judge]

12, do you wish to lay more foundation about when the statement was written, whether it was before it was signed or not?

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

I can do that, Judge. I appreciate that.

[Judge]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Agent, Hold. Do you recall when you collected this written statement from Ms. Noble?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. It was in April.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

In April. Do you know what day?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

April 6th, I believe.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And you collected that? Did you go to her home? I think. Is that what you said?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes. Myself and Agent Davis went to the residence.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And did you sit there while she prepared it?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I did, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And did you witness her sign it?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I did, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, there's. At this point, I'd move to admit exhibit 13.

[Judge]

All right. And to the State representative. Could you scroll down?

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

All right.

[Judge]

Pursuant to the Utah rule of evidence 1102 and article 1, section 28. I'm sorry, article 1, section 12,

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

which

[Judge]

allows for reliable hearsay, I'm going to move it into. It's going to be admitted into evidence. Over the objection of defense, I note in particular that it states that I confirmed that the above files were taken from our Nest Doorbell videos and are accurate. And right before that statement is the notations that were allegedly made by Agent Hull. And so for those reasons, court finds proper foundation has been laid and that this exhibit in its entirety is admitted into evidence as it relates to publication. I will authorize publication in the courtroom and by the media, if they so wish to capture it in that form. Again, following the same format, have it on that first portion of the screen for about 10 seconds, and then scroll down to the written portion for about 15 seconds, and then scroll to the very bottom to ensure that the full exhibit has been displayed. All right. That concludes the publication of States Exhibit 13.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Thank you.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Judge, The. The video that you took with you that day when you visited with Noble or miss Noble, do you. Do you previously. Well, you've stated that the videos that you showed the Nobles were actually more than one video.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And I believe you said they were like 10 second clips, if I recall correctly. Short clips.

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And. And you showed Ms. Noble all of those. All of those videos that are identified in that statement.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

The one shown on the. On the statement was shown to Ms. No. Noble. Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Have you had a chance to review what's been Mark State's exhibit number 12.2?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, and when did you have a chance to review that exhibit?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I believe that was reviewed last week, I believe.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay. With.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

With yourself.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And does that video. Is it a single video that you watched?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

No, I believe it's four separate short videos.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And as far as. And I understand that, but as far as 12.2 is concerned, what does that exhibit consist of?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I chose the vehicle believed to be driven by Mr. Robinson arriving in front of the residence, an individual exiting the vehicle and moving away from it, followed by an individual returning to the vehicle and unlocking it. And then it shows the vehicle a short time later, starting and leaving the area.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And those are the videos that you showed Ms. Noble?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

What I have displayed on your monitor was Ben Marks, plaintiffs or states, Exhibit 12.5 for identification. Let me know as soon as you see. Should be a still image.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I can. It's there.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Do you recognize what's depicted there?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yeah, this is the view looking what would essentially be west across the street from the Nobles residence.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. At 12:38am, I guess. Or 00:38.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. And. What. What is depicted in this? I think you've already described that. So, Judge, I would move to admit. Exhibit 12.2.

[Judge]

Ms. Nestor.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Your Honor, we renew our objection to allowing in the. The evidence without the sponsoring witness. I do have some concerns because I'm not totally sure if this compilation. If this is a compilation, or if this is just one of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, at least six videos they took from the Nobles. So if we could have that clarification, I think that that concerns me about authenticity. That I don't understand if this is just a portion or if this is the whole thing, or is this is all of them or none of them. And for those reasons, we object to the admission and to publication.

[Judge]

Thank you, Mr. Sturgill.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

There's that. That's a good point. And I'll ask additional questions before I re. Seek to admit it. Agent Hull, this particular video you've described taking several videos to Ms. Noble and having review them?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. This particular exhibit 12.2, have you watched it in its entirety?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Does it consist of either some or all of those videos that you showed Ms. Noble?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

It does, yes.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And is it a single video? Is it a compilation, that is to say. Or is it four different videos? Or a number of different videos?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Be a number of short videos sequenced.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay. A number of short videos in sequence.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

I believe that's how this one plays. Yes.

[News Reporter]

Okay.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Just.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Again, I seek to admit it.

[Judge]

Anything further from the parties? All right. Given my previous rulings on exhibits, I applied the same analysis and find that states Exhibit 12.2, I believe, is admitted over the objection and may be published in the courtroom and by the media, if so chosen.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, so before we play this video again, what is it that leads you to believe that this is Mr. Robinson's vehicle?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

The shape of the vehicle can be clearly seen as it pulls up, and the distinctive Wheels on the vehicle also.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And what? Well, let's go ahead and play it.

[Judge]

Is there any sound associated with this?

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

There is, Judge, but it's. It's night sounds. It's crickets chirping and.

[Judge]

Okay, I just wanted to see if there was. I just wanted to see if there was sound or not.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Okay.

[Judge]

All right, you may play the video.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

So on the first part of that video, what do you see?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

The vehicle we believe to be driven by Mr. Robinson pulling up and parking in front of the. Across the street, but in front of the residence.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Okay, and then in the next video, what do you believe is displayed in that video?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

There's an individual who gets out of the vehicle. You can hear the door close. And then that individual moves away from the front of the vehicle. There's actually two reflective panels on a dumpster. And you can see the individual past those reflective panels.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

In the last of those series of

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

videos, the second to last one, the individual comes back across those reflective panels to the vehicle, unlocks the vehicle and gets into it. And then in the last video, the vehicle is started and individual drives away.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Just one moment, judge.

[Judge]

Yes, You may.

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

It.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

All right, everybody. Welcome into this very special edition of Just the News. No noise as you are watching. This is the trial of Tyler Robinson. The judge is set to determine whether the full trial is going to move forward based on the evidence for alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson. So joining us now to break all of this down and everything that has happened thus far is former prosecutor and career trial attorney Wendy Patrick. Wendy, thanks so much for being here.

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

Thank you for having me.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

This might be a very brief convo because council has approached the bench and they might go back to the proceedings. But what have been some of the biggest takeaways for you today so far?

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

One of the biggest takeaways is the record that this group is making. And I say group because I mean both the prosecution, the defense, and the judge. This is one of those cases where you do not want anything going wrong because you're preserving this transcript for potential appeal. And that's really one of the things they're focused on, including this hearing they're having right now.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

So it seems to me that, you know, as a layperson, they're going through the evidence trying to figure out what can be admitted. Is there anything that stands out to you as, oh, my goodness, this could be the nail in the coffin for Tyler Robinson or the other side of that?

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

Yes, that's a great question, because one of the things that makes a huge impact is the actual footage of the assassination, I mean, that has to be one of the most damning pieces of evidence in any type of a trial like this. And unfortunately for those of us that saw it, it is absolutely triggering. So that's the kind of evidence that's explosive in nature. So you bet the defense is going to do everything they can to make a record that indic. They've done what they can to keep it out. On the other hand, that's a big piece of evidence for the prosecution. And while they're, they're justifiably also concerned about the retraumatizing effect of it, it's a big part of the case. So this is the fine line both sides are watching when it comes to what is the, the, the most important pieces of evidence to litigate. So that is one of the reasons why we're seeing so much about that here. Authentication, I have to say, is another big deal at the preliminary hearing, because although you don't carry the same standard of proof, I mean, the judge just has to find probable cause to move the case forward till trial. You also want to make sure that all the evidence is reliable. So you have authentication, admissibility, publication, relevancy, reliability. All of those things that are important at a trial are to some extent also important at a prelim. And one more thing I'll add, because I used to be a defense attorney before I was a prosecutor, the defense is testing the waters to see how much of what type of evidence the judge is going to admit, because that's going to inform their trial strategy. They don't have to show their hand at a prelim. Prosecution has to show a lot more evidence. The defense doesn't have to show any. But they do have an opportunity to test some of these objections here, as you see that they're doing.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Do you see thus far, because you hear, you hear in courtroom terms all the time about preponderance of evidence. Have we, have we reached that point yet?

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

Well, it's even less than that at a prelim. It's a slight suspicion. They call it different things in different jurisdictions. But probable cause basically means there has to be enough evidence to proceed to trial. Now we have enough evidence in the court of public opinion. And given that most of that will be recreated here, you are going to meet that quantum of evidence. But even though everyone knows that's where we're headed, it still has to be done on the record. And that is one of the reasons we have so many questions asked. A big foundation is being laid Any non legal observers would be saying, why are we going into all of this? It's just a probable cause hearing. But there are no, there's no room for mistakes in a case this high profile. And with all the different types of evidence. And as you're seeing, given the judge actually just sustaining one of the defense objections, we can't take anything for granted. And that's why, even though you only need that, that small quantum of evidence, they're going over and above crossing the T's and dotting the I's to make sure no mistakes are made.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Yeah, I mean, I think of all of the high profile trials out there where there have been just procedural errors, things that, you know, not even intentionally tainted the case, but ultimately ended up having the case turned out. I mean, we're looking at Harvey Weinstein. I'm trying to think of the Nexium guy. But over and over and over again, you see this. So, so I absolutely hear what you're saying, because I shudder to think that for. For Charlie Kirk's millions and millions of fans and people who, by the way, since his death, have become supporters of his because they had one view of him and then when he died, they watched clips and they actually informed themselves. But for those people, I shudder to think what would happen if something went haywire in this case and it got thrown out.

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

And let me add to that, that was excellent. I agree with everything you just said. And in addition to all of that, think about the high profile this case has in terms of who's currently in the courtroom. Can you imagine Erica Kirk, Charlie's parents, having to sit through a second trial because something went wrong? So there's a lot riding on this going, right?

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Absolutely. And it's. And it's been heartbreaking. And I think that for a lot of people, people, but also women out there observing what Erica Kirk is going through, what she went through, what she continues to get dragged through. There's definitely that heartstring element to this, which I understand in, you know, court of law, that that is not something that hinges a case of whether it goes forward or whether it doesn't in the case of today's proceedings. But I want to. Control room. Do we have those clips that you guys had initially? Can we show those?

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

Okay.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Okay. Awesome. All right, so for those of you who haven't been tuning into this trial, because it has been on all day and we're going to be watching it and following it as it goes on throughout the week, but Oscar, Officer Bagley, at one point Says that he actually saw the markings of someone in a prone position, a shooting ready position on the rooftop where Charlie was allegedly, allegedly shot from. Check this out.

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

I'm on top of the Losey building, which is where the gravel is on towards the bottom center. I'm looking west towards the tent which is in the upper center that you got a white tent. You can see the grass down down there in the amphitheater, you got the hall of flags. That's more towards the top center. And behind that you've got I15. But what I'm looking at is in the disturbance of the gravel is what I saw that day.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay, and what can you describe for

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

the record that disturbance to me, when I, when I got up there and I could see this disturbance in gravel. To me it looks like a sniper pad, a person that has been laid in a prone position. And you've got markings of elbows, knees and feet to where somebody was in the line of sight of where Charlie's tent was.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

And for our audience, just FYI, the reason we haven't gone back into that courtroom is because the counsels approached the bench and had a conversation. And then it appears that they went on break. So soon as they come back from that break, we will dip straight back in. But I want to ask you, you know, it's not supposed to matter what the emotions are surrounding this, but I can't help but think that, I mean, unless you are just a stone cold concrete hearted person, it's got to play into this at some point, even if you don't want to admit it.

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

It's true. And here's what's interesting about that point. It is definitely always a jury instruction that they have to make their decision without passion or prejudice. You can't let your emotions at all color your view of the evidence. You would be amazed how seriously jurors take that, Admon. I mean, I've been trying cases for 30 years and they will always admit afterwards that, you know, there was a big disagreement in the jury room because if there's any indication somebody's using emotion instead of fact, they'll make sure they go overboard to prevent that. We're all human beings. And it's even tough for the bystanders in the courtroom to sit through some of this testimony. And if anybody has to walk out in tears. I know Erica Kirk already left at least once today. The jurors have to also make sure they don't let that emotion color their judgment. So it's something they take seriously. I'm optimistic I believe that especially working as a group, most of the time, they're able to do it.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Yeah. Wendy, is there a larger picture in all of this? That again, I know, just like the emotion thing, I know it's not supposed to be in their mind, but there to me is an overarching principle here, and it's that political disagreements and grievances should not be solved, I suppose, with violence. Because you look at a case like this and what it says to the American people about the left and the right and the way that each side handles disagreements compared to the other. And I have to think that in this day and age, when we see people constantly trying to kill the President of the United States, shooting up congressional baseball games, shooting up ICE facilities, time after time after time, you see this happening. It's frankly, just as an observer, it's coming from one side, going towards the other side. But there's got to be a piece of this. There's got to be a layer on top of all of this that's informed by the news that we continue hearing, which is that one side carries out violence to try to silence the other.

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

And that partisan viewpoint is also something that jurors will be screened for before they're ever allowed to sit on the case. Because simply by admitting what side you're on, you're also admitting ideology much of the time, not all of the time. But that is something both sides are going to have an opportunity to explore. And by the way, is such an important point. It was actually one of the rationales the judge used in letting the media have access to the proceedings we're watching in real time. The defense didn't want cameras in the courtroom. They didn't want anything live streamed. The judge reminded everyone that we can investigate partisan politics, judicial overviewpoints that potential jurors might have, and then how to contain those before a jury is selected. Because what you exactly said, it does seem to be one sided. If you look at this administration, they're going to worry that that's going to color the judgment. And you're going to have jurors sitting there that are going to be deciding the case based on something other than the testimony and the evidence provided in the courtroom. That is the litmus test. No matter who they are, what emotions they feel, what politics they hold, they can only Judge Tyler Robinson based on what comes off the witness stand and what's presented as evidence.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Yeah. Wendy Patrick, thank you so much for this analysis. And this, this is going to be ongoing throughout the week unless it ends in the next few days. So, so we will definitely have to get you back on to break it all down for us. Wendy, thanks so much for being here.

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

Thank you for having me.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Absolutely. All right, everybody, we're going to have more from the Tyler Robinson hearing on the other side of this break. So don't go anywhere.

[Courtroom Announcer/Clerk]

The promise of this country has been the freedom to build something of your own. And for millions of families, that dream begins with owning a home built in a blink of an eye, that American dream can turn into a nightmare. With just some public information and a Ford signature, criminals can legally transfer your homeownership into the name. You won't find out about it until you start getting foreclosure notices. They show up in the mail getting it back. It could be months, even years. Thousands in legal fees just to reclaim what's already yours. That's why we trust the experts at home title lock. With 24.7title monitoring, urgent alerts and a 100% fraud restoration success rate, they fight for property owners and their loved ones against this growing crime. And to celebrate America's 250th birthday, they're giving us all 25% off for up to two years in title fraud protection. Plus a free title history report to ensure you're not already a victim. Use my promo code [e-mail] and get protected today. That's hometownlock.com promo code jtn25.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Welcome back, everybody. That hearing is set to return in just a few moments, but in the meantime, I want to squeeze in a few more questions with Wendy Patrick, our guest right now. She's former prosecutor and career trial attorney and has a great perspective on all of this. Wendy, I want to ask you about the timeline as I was just telling my audience to. We're going to be carrying this through the end of it today, which I think is supposed to end in about 30 minutes, but it is scheduled to go on throughout the week. Is this the type of thing, the pace that you are seeing today? Is that an indication that it will take the whole week or do you think that everything will be presented and the hearing will wrap up sooner than that?

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

You know, it's a great question. Judges always ask that question. Counsel, are we really looking at five days or are you going to get everything done in three? When we had you asked me that question four hours ago, I would said let's block out next week, too. But then we really did seem to pick up the pace and that's as it should be because the defense is getting some idea as to what kind of objections are going to be overruled, what are going to be sustained. They're lodging what we call standing objections to certain types of evidence, which means they don't have to keep reciting them again and again. That's going to cut down on the anticipated amount of time. And there also is an element of the judge at some point will know for a fact he has enough evidence, and it'll be interesting to see if he behaves as many of his peers do and begins to signal to the parties that he's heard enough and there is plenty to go to trial. Now, the key for the defense, when we get to that point, is they have to make sure they've made all the right objections to try to keep out all of the evidence they're going to argue makes it makes sense not to move forward. The prosecutor has to do the same thing, except they always go much further than the defense in putting in as much evidence they need and then some in a case of this magnitude. So having said all that, I think we're definitely going to be done this week, possibly before Friday.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

All right. I want to ask you to give a performance review thus far of each side, the council on each side. Does it seem to you, and do they have a reputation? Is there reputational information that you can give us about each of these sides that tells us, hey, these people are the top, top of their game. It's going to be a dogfight till the end, or maybe not.

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

Well, because I don't practice in that jurisdiction, I would say I have an even more objective assessment of their performance in the courtroom today. You know, one of the things I would say characterizes this hearing so far is civility. You have both sides standing up, you know, making their objections. They don't raise their voice. Their demeanor is right. And I don't think it's simply because there are television cameras. Because what happens is we tend to forget about the cameras when passions sort of take over objectivity. I haven't seen this today. They are being very polite to one another. The judge is very polite. They're even keeled. Their tone is adequate. There is no reason for them to go over the top at a prelim. There's no jury there to rate them. I think they're doing very well. And I think that objective analysis, if it carries through to trial, is going to result with a judge at the end saying, it's been a pleasure to work with all of you. The judge also does not seem to be treating either party as if there's some, some foreknowledge that there's a problem attorney in the bank. Now maybe there's a Utah lawyer that's going to come in and prove me wrong. But I can tell you what I'm seeing is what the jury is going to see. Because remember, one of the other questions they're asked at the beginning of Wadir is do you know the parties or any of the attorneys? So there'll be an opportunity to vet that as well. But so far, so good.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Okay, Wendy, let me ask you this because there have been trials out there where there is just absolutely brutal and grotesque video and photos and things like that. And this one, there was a shocking element to the video that we saw of Charlie Kirk. I remember that day vividly. I mean, it was almost a surreal day in our newsroom. We're all shouting at each other from across the newsroom, trying to get the latest information, trying to verify it with two or three sources before, before we put anything out there. But one thing we knew was that we saw that video and we saw something extremely shocking and, and frankly, evil happened before our eyes. Does that play into this? Is this the type of situation where that gets played in the courtroom over and over and over again? So that, that makes, that, that makes an impression in those jurors brains?

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

It won't be played over and over again. It's another great point you make. A judge won't allow that, but it's going to be just as triggering, just as traumatic and just as surreal as it of us when we first saw it. And I'll add, not only is it re traumatizing for everybody in the courtroom, but remember that assassination really had a worldwide reverberation. There were people that weren't even Christians that were coming up to me, one of the other hats I wears as a Christian minister and basically admitting they felt like they'd lost a family member and they weren't yet even people of faith. So understanding the Charlie Kirk effect, no judge is going to allow it to be played over and over again. And I honestly, it seems like once is all you need with footage that shocking. And it's one of those pieces of video where it's not that it's so graphic in terms of blood and gore, it is just so shocking in terms of the way it happened. Surreal is a great word to use. I think we all felt that way, but I believe the jury will be able to see it.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Yeah. And you know, there was this other aspect of it. Because, you know, so often the left tries to argue on one side of a debate issue, and they say, well, you know, you guys just need to come at us with facts. You need to come at us civilly. You need to come at us, you know, in a calm manner. There wasn't anyone out there on the conservative side who came out with more facts, with more. With more civility and with more calmness than Charlie Kirk. So if they're willing to kill Charlie Kirk to silence him, my goodness, the rest of us, especially hot heads like me, I mean, we're screwed when it comes to their opinion of us.

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

You know, we are hopeful that cooler heads prevail on both sides. You know, there are plenty of people on the left that absolutely decry acts of violence like this or any kind of violence or any type of egging anybody on towards violence. But you are correct. It's a vocal minority and it's a small sliver. That really is the problem here. And this is what this trial is about as well. You know, it's not just about an assassination. It's also about the larger political issues that you describe, which is another reason we're going to see a long preliminary examination, is that everyone understands what's riding on this. So I have to say, I hope it's a wake up call as the. Remember the baseball game. That was the wake up call for both sides for a while. This will be another wake up call that reminds everyone that political violence is never the issue. And that's a bipartisan statement that both sides of the aisle can get behind.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Absolutely. Wendy Patrick, always appreciate your analysis. We're going to dip back into the courtroom and hopefully we'll have you on later on in the week to re up on that on that wisdom. All right, everybody, here we are, Here we are.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Sorted out these few questions. We were all in agreement that we want to break for the day. Is that right, Ms. Nestor? Well, sure.

[Judge]

You may proceed with your questions and we'll take it from there.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

All right,

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Agent Hole, I asked you earlier, after you had testified, about all the video that you've watched and video that you believe depicts Mr. Robinson from the UVU surveillance, and that combined with the driver's license and the DMV records, whether or not you believe that that person that you have seen in the video and on the driver's license record is in the courtroom today, and I believe your answer was yes.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yes, that's correct.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And then I asked you if. If you wouldn't mind pointing him out and describing something that he's wearing. And I don't believe that I allowed you to do that.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Okay.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Would you do that right now?

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Your Honor, just for the record, we would impose an Objection based on 14th amendment for due process due to an unduly suggestive in court Id. Also, we believe there's a lack of foundation establishing his ability to interpret the surveillance video. And based on that, we would object.

[Judge]

All right. I note that. Well, did the State. Do you wish to be heard on what was just stated?

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Well, just.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

I think. I think we had this discussion and I think you ruled on that specific objection. And then after you. You ruled, I just neglected to come back and follow through with the question and the answer. That's my recollection of the. The bench meeting.

[Judge]

I believe I stated for the purposes of this hearing that identification by agent Hull of Mr. Robinson was made. I could be wrong, but.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Well, and I just wanted to clarify that, Judge, because there was some question about whether that in fact did happen. And so if that's your recollection of what happened and if you're willing to put on the record that Agent Holt has identified the defendant, I think we're done.

[Judge]

Does the defense want to be heard? Of course.

[News Reporter]

Well, if.

[Judge]

For the. For the benefit of the record and for thoroughness, if you wish to re. Ask that question, you. You certainly.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Well, we.

[Judge]

We can see what happens.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

If I could, Judge, I'd like to. Would you please point him out and identify something that he is wearing?

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

Yeah, I believe that Mr. Robinson is between Ms. Nestor and other counsel were wearing a gray suit jacket with a dark tie and a light colored shirt.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

As I would ask that the record reflect that Agent Hull has identified the defendant.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

I mean, I made my objection already.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay.

[Judge]

I just wanted to check.

[Courtroom Announcer/Clerk]

Thank you.

[Judge]

For the purposes of this hearing, I find that Agent hull has identified Mr. Robinson. Again, this is only for the preliminary hearing. You may proceed.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Judge, I think for today with Agent Hull, we're. We're done for today. We'd ask that at this point, we take a break until tomorrow.

[Agent Hull (Police Officer/Witness)]

All right.

[Judge]

So are you saying that you're. You're going to recall Agent. Well, we're going to resume with Mr. Hall tomorrow morning.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

And let me explain to. And I was going to explain this, but let me explain why. Judge, our intent is to prepare an original version of the video that has been in dispute today without the circles, without the blur and without the zooming in. And our intent is to introduce that tomorrow as a different exhibit. And we just can't prepare that in the next hour or so. So we're going to need this evening to prepare that exhibit, and we'd like to return with that. Judge. What I would also suggest. Well, let's. I guess. Let me get your. Your take on that, Judge.

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

All right.

[Judge]

Does the defense wish to be heard about ending for the day? We have about 19 minutes until 5 o'.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Clock.

[Judge]

What is the defense?

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Your Honor, we're happy to accommodate the state on that.

[Judge]

All right, so for today, Agent hall, you may step down. And we'll resume with your testimony tomorrow morning. Anything further, Mr. Sturgill?

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

Well, there's just one other thing, and it's. It's a suggestion.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Agent, can you wait just one second? I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

I'm sure Ms. Nester may have a position with regards to this. But, Judge, we would invite you

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

to

[Prosecutor (Mr. Sturgill)]

review the exhibit that we've been talking about today. It is 12.1. We suggest that you look at it between today and tomorrow, because our intent is to seek to admit the version where it doesn't have the circle or the blur or the zoom in. And if that is admitted, we do intend to introduce that exhibit, 12.1 as well. And I think it would be helpful if you saw that in advance and you could compare that to the version that doesn't have the circle, the blur, and the zooming in. I would ask that you do that. I don't know if this necessarily has a different opinion about that, but I think it would be helpful in determining whether or not that particular exhibit, 12.1, is admissible.

[Judge]

Ms. Nestor,

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

I don't have anything to add to that. I defer to what the court prefers to do on that. I do have another matter before Agent Hull's release that I do want to address with the court, but I don't have any concern if the court wants to look at it in advance. It's kind of a little bit of a long video. I think it's just about five minutes. Maybe it's not very long. So if you. If you want to wait until tomorrow, it's not going to slow the matter down very much, but it's up to the court on that.

[News Reporter]

All right.

[Judge]

I appreciate the parties. What I'm going to do is I'm going to wait until it's properly before me and a motion has been made for either of the videos, and then I'm. I'm happy to entertain the motion to review both of them or however the parties. I don't want to issue a pre ruling, so I'll Wait till it's properly before me, and I can take it from there. Being that it's about five minutes, I'm not. Not too concerned about how much time is needed. I also want to be thorough, so I'll wait till it's brought before me and we can address it from there and turn to Ms. Nestor as it relates to your request.

[Defense Counsel (Objection Lawyer)]

Thank you, your honor. Your honor, I. I recognize that agent Hull is the case agent and is working with the state in preparing for this, but he is still on the stand, and I would ask that he be instructed that he can't discuss his testimony even though he's the case agent. I don't think it's proper for him to discuss his testimony while he's excused

[Judge]

for the night, Mr. Sturgill. All right, so, agent, from this moment on, until we come back in court, you're instructed not to discuss your testimony with anyone, as you are still on the stand for all intents and purposes, and will. If the state recalls you that tomorrow morning, then we'll proceed.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Okay? Okay.

[Judge]

All right. May this witness be excused for today. All right, thank you, Agent Hall. Anything further from the parties, or do either party need the benefit of the record before we adjourn?

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Not from the state, judge.

[Officer Bagley (Witness)]

All right.

[Judge]

Noting neither party wishes to. Wishes the benefit of the record. Court is in recess until 9am tomorrow morning.

[Defense Attorney (Ms. Nestor)]

Morning.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

All right, Everybody, so at 9:00am tomorrow, we are going to pick back up the coverage inside that courtroom. But for now, I want to bring back on Wendy Patrick. Wendy. Tyler Robinson has been charged with aggravated murder. That is a capital offense. I do believe prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. As you see the evidence thus far today, obviously, we have many more days of this. What do you anticipate will come of their seeking of the death penalty? Do you think we'll reach that?

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

Yes, because, you know, they don't charge it unless they believe they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's not even the standard at a preliminary hearing. So, you know, part of a preliminary hearing is, you know, to basically put on all the evidence that's already in the court of public opinion, make it official, have a judge rule on it. It's also an opportunity to test the value of certain pieces of evidence. You know, it's one thing to say, oh, we have camera footage, video footage that captured the incident. We have a sniper pad. We saw somebody in a sniper stance. It's quite another thing to prove it was the man you have in court. And you saw that dynamic illustrated when there was even an objection made to identifying the defendant in the courtroom. So if you think about all of the ways in which the defense is making a case for appeal, you have to think about all those procedural hurdles about admitting what might seem like obviously incriminating evidence actually into the record. If there's any grounds not to admit it or not to admit it yet until a proper foundation is laid, it is true, you don't need to lay as much of a foundation at prelim as you do at trial, but you still have to pass the relevancy authentication. Not the same hearsay objections are going to fly at a prelim, but you still have to present a reliable amount of double hearsay or triple hearsay, whatever it is, to make sure that a judge has enough to work with. So to that extent, yes. Also with respect to what qualifies this fact pattern for the death penalty will have to be presented. They're well on their way.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Okay, Wendy, before I let you go, I want to ask you one more thing. Because back in December at a hearing then he reportedly laughed. This happened again today. Erica Kirk left the courtroom. Those types of antics, him chuckling with his attorney, does that have any bearing on anything that happened?

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

It shouldn't, but it does. Absolutely. It has bearing on the judge. Nobody likes to see that. The defense doesn't like to see that. Here's where it gets really dangerous. If the jury sees that, they'll probably be a request to have the judge admonish the jury there not to take anything the defendant does or says at the witness table, at the defendant's table as evidence. But that may be just drawing attention to the problem. So there will be an extended sidebar or a conference. If that happens in front of a jury. And if it's happening now, the question would be, is this defendant going to be able to clean up his conduct and sort of keep control of his emotions? When the jury's in the courtroom with a trial that's going to last as long as this one, that'll be a challenge.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Well, and my question, too is, where are his attorneys on this? Shouldn't they be keeping him reined in, including his chuckling?

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

I'm sure they are doing their best. Again, having been a criminal defense attorney earlier in my career, you do everything you could possibly do. You remind your client as much as you possibly can. Things come out on the witness stand that are sometimes unexpected, they're awkward, they're triggering whatever ends up happening. Sometimes the defendant inadvertently sort of transmits emotion from counsel table. In fact, it's more often the rule than the exception that you have a defendant either emoting something, writing something, appearing to laugh that they end up not being able to control, but a jury sees it. And yes, jurors hold that against criminal defendants, they have to do everything they can in the deliberation room to make sure that doesn't happen.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Yeah. I mean, like the emotions that we were talking about earlier, in a perfect world, you would be able to wipe a jurist's mind from something that they saw or heard but were human. And that stuff just sticks in there, especially if you see something as appalling as a defendant laughing at the misery and the grief and the horror of what Erica Kirk and the children and everyone else has gone through because of what happened. Wendy Patrick, thanks so much for being with us tonight.

[Wendy Patrick (Former Prosecutor/Legal Analyst)]

Thank you for having me.

[News Anchor/Interviewer]

Absolutely. All right, everybody, we're going to take a very quick break, but we're going to have much more for you on the other side.

[Advertiser/Commercial Voice]

Most Americans are forced to spend too much money on health care and getting too little in return. If you're one of the millions frustrated by traditional health insurance, I want to tell you about America's Health Share. Go to Freedom for all health. That's freedomforallhealth.org Bannon now that's a mouthful. Freedomforhealth.org that's freedomforhealth.org Bannon and discover why tens of thousands of patriots are joining America's Health Share. America's Health Share reduces your health care costs by an average of 60% and it's accepted everywhere. In other words, say goodbye to out of network limitations. They make healthcare affordable, transparent and aligned with your values, free from surprise bills or skyrocketing premiums. For as low as 68 bucks a month, an individual can get great health care coverage minus the complications and price gouging from health care providers. You can completely scrap your current insurance or use America's Healthcare to supplement your existing policy, even with Medicare. Simply go to freedomforhealth.org that's freedomforhealth.org Bannon to learn more. Right now, new members get their first month free with promo code Bannon. It's time to make America healthy. Join the community of patriots taking back control of their health care. That's freedomforhealth.org Bannon freedomforhealth.org Bannon promo code Bannon. Make sure you go check it out. Immerse yourself in the details of America's Health Share. You will not regret it.