CHARLIE KIRK'S SUSPECTED ASSASSIN MAKES COURT APPEARANCE IN PROVO, UTAH

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: CHARLIE KIRK'S SUSPECTED ASSASSIN MAKES COURT APPEARANCE IN PROVO, UTAH

Podcast: Real America’s Voice
Host: Steve Gur (and contributors)
Date: February 3, 2026

---

Overview

This episode delivers live and deeply detailed coverage of the court appearance of Tyler Robinson, the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk, in Provo, Utah. Besides the courtroom reporting and legal arguments, the show also discusses broader national political issues such as law enforcement rhetoric, ICE controversies, and border security, with live field reporting from correspondent Oscar Ramirez in El Salvador. Throughout, the tone is urgent, opinionated, and highly critical of progressive legal and political actors, highlighting Real America’s Voice’s stated mission to offer “unfiltered news” and challenge the mainstream narrative.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Opening and Main Headlines

[00:05–02:00]

• Host Steve Gur sets the tone: “We need somebody that's going to hear the people's voice, the truth the mainstream won't touch.”
• Outlines the day’s main subjects: Tyler Robinson’s court hearing, government shutdown resolution, cartel crackdowns in El Salvador, and recent rhetoric by Democratic officials (notably Larry Krasner of Philadelphia).
• Emphasizes a theme of elites vs. “the people” and questions the motives of progressive officials.

---

2. Criticism of Democratic Rhetoric and Policies on Law Enforcement

[02:00–07:19]

• Steve Gur critiques Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner’s comment comparing ICE agents to Nazis, noting:

  “Krasner doesn't give a crap about justice in Philadelphia...He just issued a death wish to all ICE agents and operations in Philadelphia, and he knows it.” (Steve Gur, 02:26)

• Praises PA Gov. Josh Shapiro for denouncing “abhorrent” rhetoric and calls on Democrats to lower the “temperature.”
• Discusses alleged coordination between officials and activist groups via encrypted chats, labeling it a potential federal crime.
• Segment targeting Hollywood celebrities, e.g., Billie Eilish:

  “She's worth fifty million dollars. Maybe that's why she lives in a fourteen million dollar mansion on stolen land herself. Do you think she's giving it back?” (Steve Gur, 07:19)

---

3. Live Courtroom Coverage: Tyler Robinson’s Hearing

[07:54–38:25]

A. Media Decorum and Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial

• Judge sets detailed guidelines for media conduct (camera positions, microphone use):

  “These measures exist to protect the constitutional rights of all parties while preserving the integrity, fairness, and orderly conduct of these proceedings.” (Judge, 10:32)

• Defense attorney Richard Novak objects to any close-up footage of defendant Robinson, citing concerns over prejudicial coverage and impact on Robinson’s right to fair trial.
• Media counsel argues for public access but agrees to abide by guidelines.

B. Update on Discovery and Evidence Handling

• Prosecutor and defense summarize status of digital and forensic evidence transfer:

  “There are several terabytes of digital evidence from phones and other digital devices...We are still working with law enforcement on the download of approximately 30 days of all of the surveillance video at UVU. We were told it was approximately 300 terabytes.” (Chad Grenander, State Attorney, 20:33)

• Defense notes the quantity of evidence and requests additional material, including lab reports on seized evidence.

C. Victim Rights and Scheduling

• Judge references filing by Erica Kirk (victim’s representative) on right to speedy trial:

  “When considering a defendant's request to continue a previously scheduled trial...the court must inquire into the circumstances asserted as the basis for delay and must consider the victim's interests in timely resolution, together with the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights.” (Judge, 24:35)

D. Procedural Arguments—Referral to Attorney General

• Defense renews request to refer a prosecutorial disqualification motion to the state AG’s office; the judge denies it, finding the County Attorney's office adequate and without statutory cause for replacement.

  “The statute requires specific findings regarding the prosecutor's inability...Before referral is appropriate. At this stage...those statutory conditions have not been met.” (Judge, 35:34)

---

4. Field Report: El Salvador’s High-Security Prisons and Cartel Crackdown

[38:56–44:08]

• Oscar Ramirez describes witnessing the “terrorists” (MS-13, MS-18 gang members), their long sentences, and the prevailing “tough on crime” approach:

  “Some of them have sentences of 780 years because of all the damage that they have done. These people are not getting out. This is the way to eliminate terrorists from a country and bring back the peace of the citizens.” (Oscar Ramirez, 39:29)

• Interlinks the crackdown to U.S. border policies, crediting the Trump administration and praising transnational anti-cartel policies:

  “The whole trafficking system is completely shut down...the leftists in the United States of America is not going to mention Donald Trump saved lives, saved children from dying.” (Oscar Ramirez, 43:00)

---

5. Courtroom Testimony—Conflict of Interest and Prosecutorial Best Practices

[44:15–59:59]

A. Prosecutor Ray Gray Testifies

• Questions focus on potential conflicts due to a prosecutor’s adult child being a witness to the Kirk shooting.
• Gray acknowledges informal decision-making about seeking the death penalty, involving the prosecutor whose child witnessed the event:

  “I mean, it's a pretty standard policy. If there's a conflict within the office...we'll review it and decide whether any action is needed, if at all.” (Ray Gray, 47:32)

• Examination of “Utah Prosecutors Best Practices”:

  “A prosecutor should not hold an interest or engage in activities that conflict, have a significant potential to conflict, or likely to create a reasonable appearance of conflict.” (Gray reading from policy, 52:12)

B. Admission of Informal Practices and Documentation Gaps

• No written policy on seeking the death penalty; decisions are made at the county attorney’s discretion, sometimes with team input.
• No formal memo exists regarding the conflict assessment; Gray claims reliance on experience rather than documentation.

C. Discussion of Public Perception and Recusal Standards

• Explored through both policy documents and legal arguments, centering on whether involving the prosecutor whose child is a key witness creates a real or perceived conflict.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• “We need somebody that's going to hear the people's voice, the truth the mainstream won't touch.”
  — Steve Gur, 00:05

• “Krasner doesn't give a crap about justice in Philadelphia...He just issued a death wish to all ICE agents and operations in Philadelphia, and he knows it.”
  — Steve Gur, 02:26

• “She’s worth fifty million dollars...on stolen land herself. Do you think she’s giving it back?”
  — Steve Gur, 07:19 (about celebrity activism)

• “These measures exist to protect the constitutional rights of all parties while preserving the integrity, fairness, and orderly conduct of these proceedings.”
  — Judge, 10:32 (on courtroom media conduct)

• “Some of them have sentences of 780 years because of all the damage that they have done. These people are not getting out. This is the way to eliminate terrorists from a country and bring back the peace of the citizens.”
  — Oscar Ramirez, 39:29

• “A prosecutor should not hold an interest or engage in activities that conflict, have a significant potential to conflict or likely to create a reasonable appearance of conflict with the duties and responsibilities of the prosecutor's office.”
  — Ray Gray (quoting policy), 52:12

• “There are several terabytes of digital evidence from phones and other digital devices...We are still working...on the download of approximately 30 days of all of the surveillance video at UVU...approximately 300 terabytes.”
  — Chad Grenander, 20:33

---

Important Timestamps and Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Event | |-------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:05 | Steve Gur’s opening—episode themes and today’s stories | | 02:00 | Criticism of Larry Krasner's Nazi rhetoric, ICE policy questions | | 07:54 | Judge begins setting courtroom media decorum | | 12:25 | Defense objections to media photographing defendant Robinson; discussion with judge and media counsel| | 20:33 | Prosecutors/defense address status of digital discovery and evidence | | 24:00 | Judge balances victim’s and defendant’s pretrial rights | | 31:38 | Legal debate: referral of prosecution conflict to Attorney General—request denied by judge | | 38:56 | Oscar Ramirez reports live from El Salvador high-security prison | | 44:15 | Court resumes—prolonged cross-examination about conflicts, death penalty protocol | | 52:10 | Reading and interpretation of prosecutorial conflict-of-interest standards |

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a real-time, deep-dive look at the first court hearing for Tyler Robinson, by blending legal minutiae with broader sociopolitical commentary and gritty field reporting. The courtroom transcript, especially, puts listeners at the heart of vital debates on media access, trial fairness, conflicts of interest, and the prosecution of a politically charged crime. Meanwhile, segments on border security and law enforcement rhetoric reinforce the network’s editorial viewpoint—critical of progressive policy, staunchly pro-law enforcement, and actively questioning of elite motives. The coverage is thorough, at times polemical, and places strong emphasis on the values and anxieties of its target audience.

---

Transcript

[Judge]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.

[Steve Gur]

This is America's Voice live. And welcome to America's Voice Live. I'm Steve Gur. The pulse of the people. We need somebody that's going to hear the people's voice, the truth the mainstream won't touch. This guy is by definition a globalist. And the stories that matter, rav's own.

[Judge]

Ben Berkwob right up over this hill cartel. I see him.

[Oscar Ramirez]

I see him. I see him.

[Steve Gur]

Live. Breaking news right now here on Real America Filtered. These people are domestic terrorists and unapologetic. We're here to take a stand for God and country. Let's feel good. America's Voice Live starts now. Welcome to America's Voice live. I'm Steve Grid is Tuesday the 3rd of February in the year of our Lord 2026. Let's get to today's top stories. As always, thank you for joining me here on Real America's Voice. I do appreciate it. Charlie Couric's suspected assassin, Tyler Robinson expected to make an appearance in court any moment now. We'll take you live there when the coverage begins. That's in Provo, Utah. Tyler Robinson will watch what happens. Also, Real America's Voice correspondent Oscar Ramirez is on the ground inside one of El Salvador's most notorious high security prisons, documenting the government's crackdown on cartels and gain LinkedIn terror. More on that is coming up today as well. Plus, later, the House of Representatives passed a government funding bill to end the four day long partial shutdown. I'll bring on Senator Ron Johnson, discuss the details of the bill today as well. All of that coming your way. And we're going to keep an eye on the Tyler Robinson hearing scheduled for Provo, Utah. Like I said, as soon as it pops up, we're going to go there. But let's start here today. Democrats still using Nazi name calling rhetoric to demonize our federal government. The latest being Pennsylvania District Attorney Larry Krasner, who made this absurd threat against our federal agents recently in Philadelphia.

[Oscar Ramirez]

Listen, this is a small bunch of wannabe Nazis, that's what they are.

[Steve Gur]

In a country of 350 million, we outnumber them. If we have to hunt you down the way they hunted down Nazis for decades, we will find your identities, we will find you.

[Oscar Ramirez]

We will achieve justice.

[Steve Gur]

Yeah. Krasner doesn't give a crap about justice in Philadelphia or anywhere else, he's earned the name. Let him go, Larry. Because he's so lenient on actual criminals and crime. I mean, he is among the radical das Backed by George Soros to obtain such an office in the first place. So what would you expect? Jared Soros pumped over 1 1/2 million dollars into Krasner's run for office, all to elect a guy who only prosecutes about 30% of violent crime. Any 30%. You heard me right. So while Larry Krasner lets off the actual criminals, he just issued a death wish to all ICE agents and operations in Philadelphia, and he knows it. Krasner and the rest of those just like him know exactly what they're doing. They're riling up the radicals to do the dirty work for them, fighting Trump and his objectives. And they don't care who gets hurt in the process. They don't. This is an unprecedented level of hate being thrown toward our ICE agents, especially by an elected official. And I got a tip that I have to tip my hat, that is, to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. He wasn't buying it. He doesn't agree with me on much of anything. But at least he had the guts and the integrity to call Krasner out for those shameful comments. Here he is. Your take on that. That kind of rhetoric is unacceptable, it is abhorrent, and it is wrong. Period. Hard stop. End of sentence. I think what we need, and I've called for this in Minnesota and I practice this in Pennsylvania, is we need to bring down the rhetoric, bring down the temperature and create calm in the community. Yeah, I'd like to see Governor Shapiro do more to bring down that kind of rhetoric in his own state, but that's just a start. It should be a no brainer for every sensible Democrat to do the same thing. But we're not seeing that, are we? It's no longer a conspiracy theory that elected officials are part of the signal chats that have been used to orchestrate the violence and the chaos against ice. In fact, the Minneapolis Teachers Union chief has proudly declared that fact for all to hear. Yeah, here it is.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

The notion that people that are actively engaged in ICE watch, in being vigilant, in protecting our neighbors, in signal chat.

[Judge]

Groups, running plates in their cars, doing.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Patrols, that somehow we're ashamed of that activity, that somehow you could call our bosses or show our faces and then we would be shunned by our community. Our bosses are in the signal chats with us. Our elected officials are in the chats with us.

[Steve Gur]

Wow. They're all in the chat with them. And she's loud and proud about it. There should be consequences for that kind of behavior by public officials, don't you think? Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 372 makes it a federal crime for two or more people to conspire to prevent by force, intimidation or threat any US officer from performing his or her duties. Which is exactly what I would argue is happening in those signal chats, by the way. They're harassing federal agents. Your thoughts? And Title 8, Section 1324 makes it illegal to harbor, shield or conceal any illegal alien, which is the express purpose of all of these people who say they're out protecting their neighbors. The only neighbor that ICE is going after is the illegal alien criminal. Why would you want that person as your neighbor in the first place? I wouldn't. Why would they? You know who doesn't have illegal criminal aliens as their neighbors? The Hollywood elites who showed up for the Grammys over the weekend with their ICE out pins, pretending to show their support for a cause that they don't have anything to do with and aren't doing anything meaningful about. These people are protected from the ugly consequences of illegal immigration, but they're all about supporting the protesters who want to risk their lives assaulting federal agents in the name of preserving illegal immigration into this country. For example, here's the acceptance speech I know you've seen it, that music artist Billy Eilish made here's part of it.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Anyhow, listen, no one is illegal on stolen land. And.

[Judge]

Yeah, it's just really hard to know what to say and what to do right now. And I just, I feel really hopeful in this room and I feel like we just need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting and our, our voices really do matter and the people.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Matter and.

[Judge]

Say, sorry.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Thank you.

[Steve Gur]

Yeah, she's a child. But why does what she says have any relevance at all? She's worth fifty million dollars. Maybe that's why she lives in a fourteen million dollar mansion on stolen land herself. Do you think she's giving it back? And how can land be stolen if orders don't exist in the first place? Of course, none of that makes any sense. Like I said, a multi millionaire with private security. All right, we're going to go to Provo, Utah now, like I said, with that case involving Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson. Let's go to the courtroom.

[Judge]

And disqualification, if necessary, narrowly tailored, of the news organization that filed the request in order for electronic media coverage of the court proceedings for that hearing from serving as pool camera operator in this matter, where such a measure is required to ensure compliance with the standing decorum order and protect the rights of the parties Any such remedial measure would be considered only as a last resort and only to the extent necessary to address the specific violations at issue. Council will have an opportunity to provide input before the court makes any final determinations regarding sanctions. The court values that input, and we'll give it careful consideration. I want to be clear that these measures are intended to preserve open and transparent courts while ensuring fairness to all parties, and the court remains fully committed to the presumption of open proceedings under the applicable rules. Rather, these measures exist to protect the constitutional rights of all parties while preserving the integrity, fairness, and orderly conduct of these proceedings. With respect to media coverage in the courtroom, the court offers the following additional guidance to assist everyone in navigating today's proceedings. The pole camera has been relocated to the rear of the courtroom. The camera operator shall not zoom in on any individual seated at council table. When council tables are filmed, the camera must remain in a wide shot that includes all individuals seated at the table. Attorneys and witnesses may be filmed individually when standing at the lectern or seated in the witness box. I would also ask counsel to be mindful that microphones are located throughout the courtroom and may pick up conversations. Counsel may wish to consider using screen protectors on laptops and taking reasonable steps, such as covering one's mouth when speaking to avoid the inadvertent capture of private communications, whether by camera, microphone, or those present in the courtroom. Third, the court wishes to address the camera operator at this time. Mr. Josh Demic, could you come forward to the lectern? Could you please state your name and spell it for the record? Yes, My name is Josh Demick. J, O, S, H, D, E, M, I, C, K. Thank you. My intention is not to cause you any embarrassment or discomfort, although it's probably not feeling that way on your end. I simply want to ensure that the expectations for today's proceedings are clear. During today's hearing, what is your primary role? My role is to cover the hearing that we have going on this afternoon, and I have read over the decorum and the EMC as well. My plan is to solely focus on the individuals that will be speaking up here.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

All right.

[Judge]

You anticipated my next question, which was, have you read the December 23, 2025 standing decorum order which. Which you have and I appreciate. And do you understand the guidelines as they relate to your responsibilities today, including the additional guidance regarding counter position at council table and the filming of attorneys and witnesses that I just put on the record that was not in the declarant order? Yes, your honor. All right. Do you need any additional time to review the order or to reposition the camera to ensure full compliance?

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

No.

[Judge]

Your Honor, do you anticipate any difficulty complying with the order or today's guidance?

[Chad Grenander (State Attorney)]

No.

[Judge]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Dimmock. Thank you. Before I let you go, any as I just asked questions of the pool camera operator. Mr. Dimmick, I'll turn to counsel. I do wish to weigh in on what the court has just done.

[Steve Gur]

No.

[State Attorney (possibly Mr. Ballard)]

Your Honor.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Thank you.

[Judge]

Thank you.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

Yes.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Thank you.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

Thank you, Honor. Richard Novak for Mr. Robinson. May I speak from here?

[Judge]

Yes, Mr. Novak.

[Steve Gur]

All right.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

Thank you, Honor.

[Oscar Ramirez]

We.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

Appreciate that the court, on its own accord, moved the videographer. I don't know where the still photographer is, but we continue to be concerned that any video images of Mr. Robinson during court proceedings, close up images of Mr. Robinson during court proceedings, interfere with his right to a fair trial. I think I heard everything the court said about the videographer, but the still photographer is still seated in the same place where they were last week. And we would ask the court to order the still photographer not to take any photographs of Mr. Robinson's face or person during the hearing in the same way that the videographer has now been ordered to be focused on the court, the witness. If somebody's testifying, counsel at the lectern, or generally the people seated at what the court referred to as council table. We do not want to see still Images again of Mr. Robinson's face in the media with more speculation about.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Meaning.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

Of his facial expressions or the lack thereof. And so we really appreciate what the court did on its own, I guess we would say. But we have the same concerns about the still photographer.

[Judge]

All right. And before I address that, any questions as it relates to Mr. Dimmick, I want to excuse him to go back. Standing in front of the court is no fun.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

I was just trying to keep him up there as long as possible.

[Judge]

All right, Mr. Dimick, thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right. Before I address that, I'll allow the parties to be heard before I address what Mr. Novak has brought up as it relates to the still photographer to the state.

[State Attorney (possibly Mr. Ballard)]

Your honor.

[Michael Judd (Media Counsel)]

I think.

[State Attorney (possibly Mr. Ballard)]

Your honor is appropriately concerned about the video. Any close ups of Mr. Robinson. I'm not sure that a still camera presents the same concern. This is a public hearing, and.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

This.

[State Attorney (possibly Mr. Ballard)]

Is a public hearing, and I think that it's appropriate that still photography be taken. I don't know that it raises the same concerns that your honors raised with the video.

[Judge]

Thank you. Any other party wish to be heard.

[Michael Judd (Media Counsel)]

I'll be brief, you, Honor. Michael Judd, on behalf of the news media, we agree that with what the state has just said, the concerns that I understand the court trying to address involve the capture of, you know, moving lips that can be used by lip readers. We have dealt in the past with inadvertent, you know, overhearing of actual conversations. I don't think still cameras present that same issue. The idea that a participant in a public hearing, including the defendant, cannot have their image captured by a still camera because a facial expression is somehow too much to let the public see, simply don't agree with it is, of course, the court's prerogative to set the guidelines that it believes are appropriate to balance these interests. But it will come of no surprise to the court that the news media believes that that particular measure of saying even a photograph of a defendant in a public courtroom is too much to allow without threatening fair trial rights in a way that goes beyond that balance. We think that's too far.

[Judge]

All right, Mr. Novak, I do have a question for you. Has there been a violation of the decorum order by the still photographer in any of these proceedings?

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

I am not aware of violations by the still photographer, but I am very aware, if I may, of what we believe is unfairly prejudicial media content based on the images and video Images, yes, can be embedded in electronic media, but still photographs also are still appearing. Still photographs from the courtroom are still appearing in print media and in less. What we've referred to as less formal media channels. So we are still very concerned, and I don't understand why there would be any even marginal negative access to the public to this hearing by the still photographer being in the back of the courtroom and taking photographs of the court, meaning, your honor, of witnesses on the witness stand. If that's what the court's going to permit of counsel, I don't have a problem with that. But we continue to have grave concerns of huge photographic lenses being focused on our client and the results of that. And I'll just make a representation to the court that while we were in court last time, Mr. Burt and I both received, literally, in real time, long, ranting voicemails from people who were watching the proceedings. Now, that was on video. I received another one of those calls today referring to my client's facial expressions from somebody who decided to leave a.

[Oscar Ramirez]

Long.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

Aggressive message on my office phone. And I'm very concerned that even still images of Mr. Robinson's visage in the courtroom are going to interfere with his right to a fair trial. And we've reached the point because of the prior violations that have occurred and because of the nature of the media coverage, where Mr. Robinson feels like he may have to make a choice between two of his Sixth Amendment rights, and that's the right to a fair trial and the right to be present. And we want him to be able to have both of those rights and the way. And all of his rights and the way he can exercise both his right to be present and his right to a fair trial is for the court to move the camera to where the video camera was ordered to be.

[Judge]

Thank you, Mr. Novak. Thank you to all parties. I appreciate your input. This is an important matter and the court takes it very seriously. I note that there has been no Violations of the December 23, 2025 Decorum Order by the still photographer. That being said, this court wishes to exercise caution and will request that the still photographer go behind the bar, to the bar being the separating lower wall, and reposition his camera at that place. I appreciate the patience of all parties as we do this. And again, this court is balancing open and transparent courts with the constitutional rights of all parties involved. All right, while that's occurring, I'll turn to the state. The court would appreciate a brief update on the status of discovery.

[Chad Grenander (State Attorney)]

Your Honor, Chad Greenander for the State. To date, we have shared with the defense 100% of what we have received from law enforcement. With that said, we have been informed late last week that there is approximately. Well, there are several terabytes of digital evidence from phones and other digital devices that the State Bureau of Investigations has in their possession. We are collecting a 20 terabyte hard drive to two of them, one for us and one for the defense. We did receive a letter, I think, this morning from the defense outlining their expectations with respect to how that would be received, original form and more specifics as well. So we're in the process of coordinating that download onto those hard drives of the digital evidence that's been collected, and we will provide that as soon as we receive that downloaded to the defense. We are still working with law enforcement on the download of approximately 30 days of all of the surveillance video at UVU. We were told it was approximately 300 terabytes and that's being downloaded 24 7. So that is still in process. So we're actively working on that and looking forward to collecting that and passing that along to the defense. It will need to be shared in some sort of similar fashion, I'm sure, with respect to hard drives.

[Judge]

Thank you. Mr. Grenander. Does defense want to be heard? That is correct, your honor. Stacey Visser, on behalf of the defense, we are in communication with the state about what we believe is missing at this point, and we are anticipating a large amount of digital discovery in the next few weeks. To that we will need to process. All right, thank you.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

May I supplement this conversation, your honor, briefly. Thank you, your honor. We've kind of divided up discovery responsibilities, and mine is to address what I'll call non digital forensics. So there are many items of seized evidence that have been sent to various law enforcement labs around the country. Without getting into the details, we have some very what I'll refer to as summary reports of those evaluations. But as the state attorneys know, we're going to need all of the underlying data notes. This relate to things like DNA and other forensics. So if we haven't provided them with a very, very detailed list of the types of documents we need, we will. But I think Mr. Gornander could speak to this in more detail in terms of the status of that. But I think that's another big chunk of materials that presumably the state attorney's office has not received yet from law enforcement. And so obviously they haven't had a chance to give it to us, and we haven't had an opportunity to look at it or to have our own experts review those types of materials.

[Judge]

Thank you, Mr. Novak. All right, before the Mr. Grenader, we'll.

[Chad Grenander (State Attorney)]

Make a point to follow up on that with the law enforcement agencies. We'll communicate with defense counsel on that.

[Judge]

Judge, I appreciate the cooperation between the parties. Before the court proceeds further, it's appropriate to address the record. The court notes the recent filing by victim representative Erica Kirk involving the statutory right to a speedy disposition of the charges under utah code section 77, 38, 7 sub 2. This court raises this issue solely to ensure that the record accurately reflects the statutory obligations governing the matters presently before it and not to suggest any view regarding the merits or outcome of these proceedings. Under the statute, a crime victim has a right to a speedy disposition of charges free from unwarranted delay. When considering a defendant's request to continue a previously scheduled trial or other significant criminal proceeding, the court must inquire into the circumstances asserted as the basis for delay and must consider the victim's interests in timely resolution, together with the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights. The court emphasizes that the defendant's rights to due process, to present evidence, and to receive full and impartial consideration of all arguments remain paramount and undiminished the court's responsibility to balance these interests faithfully and and without preference to any party. As previously stated on the record at the September 29 hearing, Justice Demand that both of these principles, the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims, be honored without compromise. With that framework established, the court will hear briefly from counsel concerning how you propose proceeding today.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

Thank you, honor. Richard Novak Again from Sir Robinson. We're prepared to continue with Mr. Gray's testimony. We did file what I captioned a renewed request that this court proceed under a particular section of the Utah code to refer this motion to the attorney general. So it's obviously up to your honor to decide if the court wants to address that renewed request in writing now or at a different time. I do want, whenever it is the court's view that it's timely, to address the issue that the court just brought up, which is how the court. Well, what I want to address is how the court will manage the question of whether Mr. Robinson needs more time to prepare for the preliminary hearing. So the court got an update on the status of discovery. The court noted Ms. Kirk's filing, which of course, we are all aware of, and we understand her rights as the representative of the victim in this case. There are challenges under Utah law when the defense needs to communicate to the court the details of its diligence in terms of preparation for a hearing, because we're not going to make a public filing of work product. And I'm sure the court understands exactly what I mean. So I'm not. I'm. What I'm saying is the court brought up the filing and the significance of that for future proceedings. We're going to need to have, if I may, what I would call sort of a case management conference. It's some point about how the court will manage our need to be able to share with the court the status of our work, which we believe is confidential and privileged in light of the fact that every time we file something and ask the court to designate it as private, we have counsel for the media trying to unseal it. And we also don't intend to disclose to the state the status of our diligence. And so I'm not asking the court to address it now. I guess I'm just trying to put a. Put a post it note on somebody's list. It's certainly on our list, and we didn't really intend to bring that up at the outset of today's proceeding. But since the court mentioned Ms. Kirk's first, it Just seems like the right time to mention that. So we're prepared to proceed with further testimony from Mr. Gray and keep going with the evidentiary hearing. Unless the court wants to address what I captioned our renewed request.

[Judge]

Thank you, Mr. Novak. Thank you. To this state.

[State Attorney (possibly Mr. Ballard)]

And your honor, the state's prepared to go forward with the evidentiary hearing. We are prepared also to address this renewed request. If your honor would like to do that at the outset. I would suggest that your honor set a time limit on that argument so that if, assuming that motion's denied, that we can move on with the evidentiary hearing. We've got witnesses who have been subpoenaed. They're ready to testify.

[Judge]

All right, well, I appreciate that update, and I do want to give some guidance of how today's hearing is going to go. And both parties have touched upon that based on the record before the court as it relates to the evidentiary hearing. In order to ensure a fair, orderly and efficient proceeding, the court will proceed as follows. First, we will address what Mr. Novak just brought up in regards to the referral to the attorney general's office briefly. And you'll see why I say briefly with my next statement. Counsel will have until 4:30 to present evidence, including cross examination and any redirect. Motions for supplemental briefing are denied at this time as the court finds the issues adequately framed for today's proceedings. These parameters are not intended to limit any party's substantive rights, but to keep the proceedings focused and free from any unnecessary delay. Upon the close of the evidence, the court will proceed to argument. Each side will be allotted 15 minutes, Mr. Novak, or to any of the attorneys who would be making closing arguments. If you intend to reserve time for rebuttal, please allocate your time accordingly. This court will conclude at 5 o'. Clock. And in addition, the court anticipates issuing its ruling via webex in order to give the evidence and the arguments presented today the careful and deliberate consideration they warrant. That proceeding will be scheduled at the conclusion of today's hearing. And so, counsel, with that in mind, we will turn to the motion to refer or the motion concerning the attorney general's office. I will hear from both parties. It is your time. I am not putting constraints on who you call, what questions you ask in part, but keep in mind these time constraints as we address this issue. Mr. Mumbach.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

Thank you, Honor. We filed what I captioned or what we captioned the renewed request because obviously, at the last hearing, we brought the request verbally. And obviously the courts read our renewed request and Our points and authorities. We received the brief written by Mr. Ballard, which is very clear and very well written, and we understood the views expressed there. We just disagree fundamentally on what that code section means. We disagree fundamentally on the suggestion that there's a separation of powers problem. It is ultimately this court's responsibility to ensure that parties are represented by conflict free counsel. Obviously, in the legal profession, there is an initial expectation that counsel will avoid conflicts, but there are always situations where a party needs to bring a conflict on the other side to the court's attention. And the court has both the statutory authority and the inherent authority under the common law to do something about it. So we do believe that this is well within the court's discretion. The statute actually tells the court that it needs to encourage the state to seek assistance. That seems to be a gentle way to say that the state is at least disqualified from litigating its own disqualification issue. And then I'm going to reserve the rest of my time for our evidentiary hearing and closing arguments.

[Judge]

Thank you, Mr. Novak. Turning to the state, Mr. Ballard?

[State Attorney (possibly Mr. Ballard)]

Your honor, it feels like groundhog day. Here we are. We've got, again, we're supposed to be having an evidence you're hearing, and Mr. Gray should be on the stand. And instead we're arguing again this issue about whether this court can refer this issue to the attorney general's office. And I guess if I were in your honor's position, I'd be wondering why the defense insists on raising this issue in a way that doesn't allow this court or the parties to be able to fully analyze it and brief it. The defense finally did file a written motion, but waited until Friday afternoon to file that. So as we've outlined in our alternative point in our response, I think this court would be well within its discretion to just deny that motion as untimely. But on the merits of that motion, I think as we've explained in our response, and your honor has indicated that you've read that, I think we've explained clearly why this statute does not apply in the way that the defense claims it does. And I'm happy to walk through the statute and the points that we've made, I don't want to belabor that. If your honor has any questions about the statute, I'm happy to answer those. But I think it's clear that this statute does not allow the court to replace a prosecutor. At best, what it allows is the court to recommend that the county attorney seek the help of the attorney general's office. So I don't believe that this statute has any application. The cases that the defense has cited are irrelevant to this issue. And for those reasons, unless the court has any further questions about the state's opposition, I'd submit it.

[Judge]

Thank you, Mr. Baker. Anything further from the parties before this court issues a ruling?

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

No. Thank you.

[Judge]

All right. So before this court's defendants request to refer the pending motion to disqualify to the office of the Utah attorney general. In support of that request, the defendant relies upon Utah code section 1718 A304, which provides that the attorney general shall assist a county prosecutor only if the court finds that the prosecutor is unable to satisfactorily and adequately perform the duties of prosecution and recommends that the prosecutor seek additional legal assistance. The defendant argues that where there exists a non frivolous basis, factual basis, suggesting a potential conflict of interest, the court should make such a finding and recommend assistance from the attorney general. The court has carefully considered that argument and reviewed the briefings. However, the statute does not adopt the standard proposed by the defendant, nor does such a standard appear in existing case law or court rules. The statute requires specific findings regarding the prosecutor's inability to satisfactory and adequately perform prosecutorial duties before referral is appropriate. At this stage of the proceeding, the court is not persuaded by those statutory that those statutory conditions have been met. Based on the record presently before the court, there is no indication that the Utah county attorney's office lacks the resources, knowledge, or ability to litigate the motion to disqualify on behalf of the state. Accordingly, the court cannot make findings required under section 1718 A304 to justify referral to the attorney general's office. For these reasons, and without expressing any views on ultimate merits of the motion to disqualify itself, the defendant's renewed request for referral is respectfully denied. All right, counsel, let's go ahead and proceed. Mr. Ballard.

[State Attorney (possibly Mr. Ballard)]

Thank you, your honor. Could I just clean up one piece of the record? Your honor referred to the statute as 1718A, but I think it's actually been renumbered. It's 1768. 1768. 304 is the. Is the current citation.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

Agreed.

[Judge]

Thank you. I appreciate that correction. And that is correct. I appreciate that. And to clarify the record. Thank you. To both parties. And so my ruling reflects that. 17, 304. All right, council, are we ready to proceed with the continuation of the direct examination of Mr. Gray?

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

Yes, except to quickly implement the exclusionary order that the court entered at the last hearing with respect to prospective witnesses.

[Judge]

All right. The court will take a very brief three minute break in order to accomplish all parties speaking with whoever needs to be spoken to and for them to be excluded. And then we will proceed. It is now 1:38. We'll come back at 1:41. Court is in brief recess.

[Steve Gur]

All right, we'll go take a three minute break. And while we're doing that, we're going to bring in real America's Voice correspondent Oscar Ramirez. He's on the ground inside one of El Salvador's most notorious high security prisons. Been visiting there documenting the government's crackdown and cartels and gang link terror groups. Oscar, were part of the expansion of RAV Espanol in our new international news network. Oscar joins me live now. Oscar, good to see you today. You've been inside these prisons. We have a short period of time here. So I want you to tell the folks in detail what you've seen, what you've witnessed.

[Oscar Ramirez]

Well, there's a complete terrorist. They're designated as terrorists. Donald Trump has designated as terrorists. Nayibu Kele, the president of El Salvador designated these people as terrorists. They're the Ms. Gang members from the Ms. 18 Ms. 13. These people were terrorizing not only in El Salvador but also in the United States of America. And remember under the Biden administration these kind of individuals were going back and forth from the borders of Mexico and the United States has some of them. We interviewed them and they were aligned with cartels. That's how infiltrated they were and how these people now they are incarcerated on this president response. They got it has the capacity for 40,000 and it has right now 50% of the capacity already in. But the reality is something else. Some of them have sentence of 780 years because of all the damage that they have done. These people are not getting out. This is the way to eliminate terrorists from a country and bring back the peace of the citizens.

[Steve Gur]

Yeah. So what are your impressions being inside these prisons? Obviously these are some of the worst of the worst. As you mentioned. What is your impression on the conditions inside those prisons which have gotten a lot of press here in the United States? Your thoughts?

[Oscar Ramirez]

Well, some of the president has just left us the one that is just basically attacking the saying that this is a human. They're receiving the humanitarian treatment. They have direct time for 30 minutes. They have their meals also. They eat for 30 minutes. They live under these conditions because they are designated as terrorists. They're never leaving this prison. They terrorize the whole country. They were decapitating, dismembering, Extortioning, kidnapping, the worst of the worst crimes that we're doing into this community. And not only to here, to this country, but Central America and North America. So this is the actual punishment that the president of El Salvador is spreading to the whole continent. You become an Ms. Gang member, you are a terrorist, and we're coming after you, and we're going to bring you back to Sekoti.

[Steve Gur]

Yeah. Do you think this is getting across to the folks in the United States that are here illegally? Do they hear these stories? Do they trickle north from places like El Salvador where we're holding the worst of the worst? Do you think that there's an indication to people that are still in the United States illegally that they could end up there?

[Oscar Ramirez]

Yes, absolutely. There has been a huge percentage of these individuals. Right now. The prison of Zakota has more than 20,000 infraction. A lot of these 20,000 infractions that were extradited and delivered by the Trump administration into Nayibo Kele. These were criminals that they were allowed in by the Biden administration and they are now in hands of the El Salvadorian government. So just as it is being done, a lot of these criminals, they know that they're going to be found and they know that they're going to be brought to justice into this facility that, you know, it is an incredible facility, the tension. You actually feel it when you're coming in there and you're walking in through that particular place. But you look at these people in the eyes and that is what they deserve. They terrorized this whole country. They completely, you know, tear this, almost this country to pieces. And they were, you know, it was a cancer that it was a spreading, a plague that it was spreading all over the continent. Steve.

[Steve Gur]

Yeah. Let me ask you this, Oscar. You spent a tremendous amount of time in Central and South America during the height of the invasion of the United States during the Biden years. What are you learning now? I mean, the Darien Gap, I understand, is basically empty, abandoned. The trails of people that you were there. You showed us pictures live of people just streaming through what's going on today.

[Oscar Ramirez]

It's a complete shutdown, Steve. If it wasn't for the Trump administration, it would be a complete disaster. Not only that, the cartel, El Clan Del Golfo, that it was controlled in South America, in Colombia, completely shut down. The whole trafficking system is completely shut down. The abuse, it's one of the things that nobody is mentioning. Of course, the leftists in the United States of America is not going to mention Donald Trump saved lives, saved children from dying. Inside of the daring gap, save women from being raped, save men from dying. You don't see no caravans out of and out of the border. On the four years of the Biden administration, I walked 12 caravans documented for real America's Voice News, multiple people died. Hundreds of people were being extortioned, hundreds of people were being kidnapped on the borders with Mexico in the United States of America. That it is non existent right now. It is on the low, low level. It is highly controlled. And what they have done, completely shutting down the border on the north part of Mexico with the United States of America has been a domino effect. And designating all of these organizations as terrorists, that has completely held for other countries to do their job.

[Steve Gur]

Oscar, excellent reporting from the field as always. We'll be going back now to Utah. Provo, Utah is the Tyler Robinson hearing resumes just in time. Here we go.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Get involved in law enforcement decisions about which potential witnesses to interview and not interview. Do you recall testifying about that?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I, I said that our role as prosecutors in Utah, I realize the U.S. attorney's office, they actually direct investigations. We don't direct those investigations.

[Steve Gur]

Okay.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And so that was, I was asking about that in the context of whether or not the adult child of one of your prosecutors had been interviewed or not interviewed at the direction of your office. Right?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes, I think I understand what you're saying.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay. So subsequent to the hearing on January 16, that adult child was interviewed by SBI, correct?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Not to my knowledge.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay. As you sit here today, you have no knowledge whether that adult child sat for an interview on January 21st with the State Bureau of Investigation at a highway patrol facility in Orem?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I do. I'm not aware of that.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And so then you haven't seen the reports generated from that interview?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

No.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

You haven't listened to the audio recording of that interview?

[Steve Gur]

You.

[Oscar Ramirez]

No.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Nobody told you that that interview was going to happen?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

No, not, not that I can remember that. That's completely.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay, well, I'll represent to you that it was five days after the hearing on January 21st. Does that refresh your recollection at all?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Oh, are you talking about after the hearing? I'm aware of that, yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay. And who, how did that come to be? Because you testified that your office has no involvement in the investigation.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Well, it was a point that you had pointed out. And so out of an abundance of caution, I believe it was Mr. McBride that decided to go ahead and do that.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay. And have the adult child be interviewed.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

So it's your understanding that Mr. McBride advised SBI to do that interview?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

That's my understanding.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Understood. Okay. You also testified on January 16th that you weren't really sure whether your office had a written policy for how to deal with either actual conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yeah, I assume that they did, but I couldn't point to one at that time.

[Steve Gur]

Okay.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And then after the hearing, did you locate a written policy?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I did.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay.

[Oscar Ramirez]

And.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

At the time that you were discussing with the prosecutor whose adult child we're talking about the fact that that child had been at UVU on September 10th and had witnessed many of the events surrounding Mr. Kirk's death, did you actually consult that written policy back in October?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

No, but I followed it.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Had you previously read it?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I'm sure I had at some point. I mean, it's a pretty standard policy. If there's a conflict within the office, then, or a potential conflict, then the attorney will notify us. We'll review it and decide whether any action is needed, if at all. Okay, but when I asked. That's what we did.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

When I asked you on January 16, is there a written policy, your answer was, you know, I'm not sure.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Right.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

There was a subpoena for documents that you received and complied with over the last week or so, correct?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay. And one of the things that we asked for in that subpoena was any memoranda or writings that memorialized how your office handled the. The potential conflict of interest, as I.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Understood, the subpoenas, any discussions regarding whether or not there is a conflict.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Right.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

And so.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Yeah, and so what I take from the return on the subpoena, if I could call it that, is that there isn't any memo to the file. There's no legal analysis, there's no memorialization of the decision that you made.

[Richard Novak (Defense Attorney)]

That.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

There'S neither an actual conflict or an appearance of a conflict.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

No, there's not.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

You mentioned when you were testifying at the last hearing that you are the president elect of swap. Could you just remind the court what SWAP is?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

SWAP is a statewide association of public prosecutors or public attorneys and prosecutors. It's. It's basically a lobbying group with respect to legislative matters that affect prosecution.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And how long have you been a.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Member of SWAT for about as the.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

As long as you can remember.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

No, the three years that I've been county attorney, I've been a member, a board member of swap.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And are you familiar with a document that they produce called Utah Prosecutors Best Practices?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I know they have that document. Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Did you consult that document with respect to what your office should do in connection with the potential conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest that we're discussing?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I do not. I don't believe I consulted it. I relied on my 25 years of. Of knowledge of conflicts and so forth.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Your honor, what I would like to do, if I May, is approach Mr. Gray with a document that I'm just going to mark for identification as Exhibit I. And that's because we've previously marked for identification A through H. If I have my Alphabet. Correct. And if I may pass one up to the court, I will. If the court needs that. No.

[Judge]

Feel free to approach Mr. Gray and present.

[Oscar Ramirez]

Exactly.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Ray, I'm handing you something that's been marked as Exhibit I only. Oh, I'm sorry. Of course. Have you seen this document before?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I've seen it, yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

All right.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I mean, there's a lot more than just conflict in our best practices.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Absolutely. But we're just going to talk about that.

[Steve Gur]

Okay.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

All right. So what I'd like to do is turn your attention to page two of that document, which has a whole section addressing conflicts of interest. Would you agree with me that it starts in the middle, page two?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes. All right.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And you see what I'll refer to as General Standard 1.30, conflict avoidance.

[Oscar Ramirez]

Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

All right. Could you just read that aloud for the record, please?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

A prosecutor should not hold an interest or engage in activities that conflict have a significant potential to conflict or likely to create a reasonable appearance of conflict with the duties and responsibilities of the prosecutor's office.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

What. What do you take to mean a reasonable appearance of conflict?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

There has to be a real, actual conflict. That it. That there could be actually an appearance of that conflict.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And that would be in the views of the public. Right.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

That would be based on supreme court case law and case law generally.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

But it's an appearance. What I'm asking you is, would you agree with me that it's. That there's an appearance to the public. Objection. This causes for a legal conclusion, your honor. Well, the witness testified that he's been aware of conflict principles for 25 years, so I think he should respond to that question. I think this is a good argument to have with. With the court after the evidence has been presented, whether or not there's an appearance of a conflict, what that means. But I don't think the witness's opinion about it is. Is evidence. Thank you. I'm going to sustain the objection. Mr. Malbec. Understood. Mr. Gray, why don't you turn to page three. And that would be standard toward the bottom. 1.3.3 C. Do you see that?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay. Could you read 1.3.3 C allowed for.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

The record, If a prosecutor believes that public perception of the integrity of the prosecutor's office and public confidence in the handling of the case would negatively be impacted by a potential or alleged conflict of interest, the prosecutor should consider recusal.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

All right, Mr. Gray, I want to ask you some questions about the decision to file a notice of intent to seek the death penalty against Mr. Robinson and the fact, which is on beyond dispute, that a adult child of a member of the prosecution team was present at the shooting of Mr. Kirk. All right. You state in your opposition. Well, let me back up. You testified on January 16th that you are the one who drafted the opposition to the motion to disqualify, correct?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

All right. So even though there's no affidavit by you, you stand by the contents?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yeah, I, I said to the extent that we needed a. We could either proffer that information or. Or testify. And here I am.

[Steve Gur]

Okay.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

So my first question is, is there a formal written policy or guidelines or procedure? I don't want you to get hung up on my nouns for when your office decides to seek or not seek.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

The death penalty in a case, Anytime that it's an aggravated murder case, there's a potential for that.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay, so, so I understand that because that's what the statute says.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

That's right.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

My question is, is there a policy, a procedure, a protocol, something in writing?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

No.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay. And is it your view that it's your decision alone because you're the elected county attorney?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes.

[Steve Gur]

Okay.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And in this case, did you discuss that question, whether the state should seek the death penalty with your team before that decision was made?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And did that conversation include the adult prosecutor, the prosecutor whose child is the adult student at UVU we're talking about?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

No.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Are you saying that that prosecutor was specifically excluded?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Now, maybe I misunderstood your question. I thought you asked whether or not we discussed her status as a.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Let me back up, because it was a bad question if you didn't understand it. Those are the rules.

[Steve Gur]

Right.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Okay.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

So you discussed with your prosecution team whether or not the state would seek the death penalty against.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Against whoever the state accused of committing that crime?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes. All right.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And the I, I, I should back up.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I mean, I don't know that we had a discussion before they actually had an arrest. I mean, that was two days later. But certainly in between the time that we filed and Then we did have a discussion.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay, so what you're saying, if I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but just so the record is clear, is that after Mr. Robinson was arrested, your team had a conversation about whether or not it would file a notice of intent to seek the death penalty.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

It was. It was rather informal. I don't know, that we all got together and said, what are we going to do? I would talk to different members of my team, but I had pretty much made up my decision. And so what?

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

They.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I mean, they knew where I was going.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Did you make up your decision before there was an arrest?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I. I thought that based on if we had the evidence that, yeah, we would be seeking the death penalty.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

And you were already aware at that time that the child of one of your team members was present at that event, right?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Sure.

[Steve Gur]

All right.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Now what you're saying is that the. And. And that you discussed that with all the team members, even if informally.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

As far as the death penalty?

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Yes.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay. And you didn't exclude from that conversation the prosecutor whose child we're talking about? That prosecutor was included in the conversation about whether to seek the death penalty?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

All right.

[Oscar Ramirez]

And.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

You'Re aware, because I think you were present, that there were a number of press conferences held by elected state officials both before and after Mr. Robinson's arrest, correct?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Yes.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Okay. The governor, who's a former licensed attorney in Utah, held a press conference on September 10th. Were you present there?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

Probably. I was president. Two different conference press conferences.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

So there was one on the 10th and one on the 11th.

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I know he made other statements as well, so I'm not quite certain I know that I was at two different press conferences.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

So when Governor Cox announced at a press conference that the state was going to seek the death penalty, had you already told Governor Cox that that was your decision?

[Ray Gray (Witness/County Attorney)]

I believe his statements. The only thing that I can remember of his statements is he said, by the way, or something to that effect. Utah has the death penalty.

[Attorney (Defense or Prosecutor questioning witness)]

Abercrombie knows how denim should fit and feel. And this year is about curating a denim collection that carries your closet head straight to Abercrombie's baggy and ultra baggy fits. These are the pairs that turn any tier shirt into a full outfit. All of their jeans come in classic fit with select jeans available in athletic fit designed for guys who want more room in the thigh shop. Abercrombie Denim in the app, online and in stores.

[Judge]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.