CHARLIE KIRK MURDER PRELIMINARY HEARING | WAR ROOM AM W STEVE BANNON | JULY 7TH, 2026

Summary

---

Real America’s Voice – War Room AM with Steve Bannon

Episode: Charlie Kirk Murder Preliminary Hearing
Date: July 7, 2026
Host: Stephen K. Bannon
Location: Provo, Utah — Coverage of the preliminary hearing in the “Charlie Kirk murder” case

---

Overview

This episode of War Room AM, hosted by Stephen K. Bannon, gives listeners an unfiltered look at day two of the preliminary hearing in the high-profile case concerning the murder of Charlie Kirk. The hearing centers on key evidence, due process debates, courtroom decorum, and fundamental questions of transparency, fair trial rights, and public access. The episode brings a raw, inside-the-courtroom feel with legal back-and-forth between prosecution, defense, media advocates, and the presiding judge.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Courtroom Introduction and Decorum

Timestamp: 08:44 - 11:48

• The judge opens the proceedings, emphasizing respect, order, and constitutional protections for both defendant (Mr. Robinson), co-defendant (Ms. Kirk), all witnesses, court staff, and the public.
• Strict reminders against the use of electronic devices, demonstrative gestures, or expressive attire in the gallery.
  • Quote: “The court is also mindful of its solemn obligation to protect and uphold the constitutional rights of both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Kirk...” — Judge [09:18]

2. Objections Over Admissibility of Evidence (Hearsay and Reliable Hearsay)

Timestamp: 12:02 - 15:40

• Defense voices objections to use of hearsay and "reliable hearsay" per Utah laws and prior motions, wanting to preserve those issues for later appeal.
• The judge recognizes the standing objection and expedites proceedings:
  • Quote: “The court...will adopt the request that the standing objection...has been noted for all of yesterday's proceedings and will be in place throughout the rest of the preliminary hearing.”— Judge [14:16]

3. Key Video Evidence: UVU Surveillance Footage

Timestamp: 16:46 - 26:26

• Witness (Agent Hull) testifies about the contents, preparation, and integrity of State’s Exhibits 12.1 and 12.4—compilations of video footage from Utah Valley University (UVU) on dates surrounding the incident.
• Detailed discussion on differences between original and enhanced versions (with red highlights, zooms, and blurs)—intended to clarify the defendant’s movements:
  • Quote: “I have reviewed state’s Exhibit 12.1...true and accurate, including timestamps, dates, and camera labels. The only changes are some zooms and red highlights which were not part of the original recording.” — Agent Hull reading Mr. Olson’s statement [20:00]
• Agent Hull asserts the footage tracks Mr. Robinson’s multiple visits to campus, the vehicle used, and the identification process.

4. Media and Transparency Dispute: Should Evidence be Publicly Shown?

Timestamp: 22:21 - 35:22

• Defense requests to block the public and media from seeing key video exhibits, citing risks to a fair trial and prejudicial pretrial publicity.
• Media counsel and prosecutor argue for openness and public right to see and understand the evidence used in critical decisions at preliminary hearing:
  • Quote: “There is a presumption...that this is a public record and should be published” — Mr. Sturgill, Prosecutor [23:05]
  • Quote: “This seems like a very important piece of evidence. It doesn’t seem like there is a basis to keep the people who are in the courtroom today from understanding why it’s being introduced.” — David Reiman, Media Rep. [23:32]
• Cited legal standards, case precedents (Allgaier, Kearns v. Tribune) debated on both sides.

Memorable Moment

• Quote: “…the constitutional standard that I think we’re all agreeing applies here is weighty and difficult to overcome. And it is never satisfied…by just generalized assertions that there’s a lot of publicity out there.” — David Reiman [30:17]

5. Judge’s Ruling on Evidence Publication

Timestamp: 33:24 - 35:22

• Judge rules to admit and allow public viewing/broadcast of State’s Exhibit 12.4, noting the balance between the right to a fair trial and public transparency.
  • Quote: “Having taken in consideration all factors, the court rules that exhibit 12.4 is admitted into evidence and shall be played in the courtroom and may be broadcast by the media.” — Judge [34:19]

6. Detailed Testimony on Robinson’s Movements (As Seen in Video)

Timestamp: 35:22 - 54:08

• Agent Hull provides a walkthrough of surveillance footage, detailing Mr. Robinson’s arrivals, departures, and movements across campus before, during, and after the alleged shooting.
• Important details:

  • Vehicle identification via DMV records and unique features (wheels).

  • Robinson’s clothing, backpack, observed limp, and entries/exits from various campus locations.

  • Timeline reconstruction, including:

    • Arrival at 8:30AM, interactions in amphitheater, food purchase.
    • Moving into the wooded area, vanishing backpack, appearances on LOSI building roof.
    • Crouching and crawling on rooftop, believed to coincide with the shooting (12:23PM), then quick departure/jump from the roof, subsequent appearance off campus.
    • Contact with Officer Goforth, partial license plate run, linking the defendant to the scene.

  • Quote: “He heads out of the parking garage on foot into the campus and...makes contact with some representatives from TP USA...at the amphitheater....” — Agent Hull [40:15]

  • Quote: “The individual...rolls over the railing onto the roof of the LOSI building....runs...crawling to the corner of the building....[and after reported shot] stands up...moves...jumps off the roof.” — Agent Hull [48:22–50:20]

7. Differences Between Video Versions/Enhancements

Timestamp: 54:08 - 59:12

• Explains red “highlights” and “circles” to mark individuals of interest, facial blurring for privacy, and zooms to improve clarity.
• Defense concern: enhancements could impact perceptions or be prejudicial.
• Agent Hull asserts enhancements don’t alter underlying accuracy.
  • Quote: “…red ovals or circles...identify specific individuals of note...the circles...are temporary...for a notable period, but...come off the video.” — Agent Hull [54:52]
  • Quote: “They are now an opportunity for people to look at an individual who we believe to be Tyler Robinson...with more clarity than the original focal point gives.” — Agent Hull [58:12]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Judge on transparency and fairness:
  “The court is also mindful of its solemn obligation to protect and uphold the constitutional rights of both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Kirk in furtherance of those important interests.” [09:18]

• Media Representative’s push for open court:
  “This seems like a very important piece of evidence. It doesn’t seem like there is a basis to keep the people who are in the courtroom today from understanding why it’s being introduced.” — David Reiman [23:32]

• Defense on prejudicial publicity:
  “There is a realistic likelihood of prejudice to Mr. Robinson’s right to a fair trial. So under that standard and under the rule, the court ought to deny publication.” — Michael Burt [27:04]

• Prosecution on the need for foundation and clarity:
  “Is the. Are the enhancements in State’s Exhibit…helpful in any way, or what do they add or take away from that video?” — Mr. Sturgill [57:43]

---

Structuring the Hearing: Timestamps of Key Segments

• Courtroom rules and decorum: 08:44 - 11:48
• Hearsay objection preserved: 12:02 - 15:40
• Prosecution direct: Exhibit 12.1/12.4: 16:46 - 26:26
• Arguments over media access: 22:21 - 35:22
• Judge’s ruling on video publication: 33:24 - 35:22
• Step-by-step walkthrough of video evidence: 35:22 - 54:08
• Video enhancements explained: 54:08 - 59:12

---

Tone and Atmosphere

• Formal, methodical, and punctilious courtroom procedures.
• Vigorous, often tense but respectful legal argument.
• Judge’s tone is firm yet courteous, balancing transparency with defendants’ fair trial rights.
• Media advocates are assertive about First Amendment/public access; defense is focused on client protection from bias.

---

For Listeners

This episode offers a rare, comprehensive front-row seat to the workings of a major criminal preliminary hearing. It unfolds the strategic legal debates around evidence, publicity, courtroom conduct, and the tension between open justice and the right to a fair trial — with exhaustive attention to every procedural detail, as well as the actual reconstruction of the events and evidence at the center of the case.

---

End of summary.

Transcript

[Judge]

This is an I heart podcast. Guaranteed human.

[Jack Armstrong]

The Joel Osteen Daily Podcast.

[Joel Osteen]

God's plans for you are for good.

[Jack Armstrong]

Be inspired.

[Joel Osteen]

Get ready. God is about to exceed your expectations.

[Jack Armstrong]

Joel Osteen Daily Podcast.

[Joel Osteen]

You are coming out of that dry place into more than enough daily encouragement

[Jack Armstrong]

right when you need it.

[Joel Osteen]

There are opportunities in your future bigger than you can imagine.

[Jack Armstrong]

Listen to the Joel Osteen Daily podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Why should you listen to Armstrong and Getty on demand? We're not boring. A lot of news is boring and tedious and depressing and makes you angry. You don't want to live your life like that. Hey, I'm Jack Armstrong. He's Joe Getty. We're Armstrong and Getty. We try to bring you the truth and help you figure out this crazy modern world.

[Judge]

How about something about a comedic tone?

[Jack Armstrong]

We have a winner. Yes. Listen to Armstrong and Getty on Demand on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get podcasts.

[Judge]

This is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray for our enemies because we're going

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

medieval on these people.

[Judge]

I got a free shot. All these networks lying about the people. The people have had a belly full of it. I know you don't like hearing that.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I know you try to do everything

[Michael Burt (Defense Attorney)]

in the world to stop that, but

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

you're not going to stop it.

[Judge]

It's going to happen.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And where do people like that go to share the big lie?

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

Maga Media.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience.

[Jack Armstrong]

Ask yourself, what is my task and

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

what is my purpose?

[Jack Armstrong]

If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. War room. Here's your host, Stephen K. Band.

[Stephen K. Band (War Room Host)]

Okay.

[Unknown War Room Posse Member]

And by the way, it's in Provo, not Salt Lake City. It's the 7th of July in the Overlord 2026. Like I said, you got to pay attention to this. This is Charlie. We owe this to Charlie. So very important. And if you're skeptical, be skeptical. I mean, this is. At the end of the week, I wanted to somehow take a poll of the chat in the war and posse, because you're the most important group out there as far as putting elbow grease or putting muscle of things that matter. You can't believe the calls I get every, every day about people. Hey, we need help here, we need help there. And we try to curate it and, you know, send you guys where it is. Anyway, it's going to start momentarily. They got A slate up right now. Let me. Do I have the. Do I have the Denver? Do I have it? I can direct, and I can direct mv the talent. You know, I'd go to these events and people would come up to me and say, we love the show. The show's amazing, but can you please quit beating up on Denver? And they thought it was a person. I said, no, it's an entity. They said, well, we don't care.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

They're good boys.

[Unknown War Room Posse Member]

They do a good job. You're tossing to them all the time. They're bringing stuff in. So let's go ahead. Mike Lindell, by the way, Mike Lindell's had a little throat issue, as you know, over the last couple of years. That's happened. Of course, he's on the campaign trail. And you know, Lindell, you can't shut him up. He's. He's up there giving these hour speeches and just on a tear, you know, 10 times a day. So it's amazing what he's doing. Plus running the company. Let's go and play the clip.

[Stephen K. Band (War Room Host)]

Hello, war room posse. Hey, I can't be with you the next few days, so I wanted to get on here and tell you I'm going to extend that sale that only comes once every 250 years. The Made in the USA sale. That's right. Our premium my pillows, king size only. 1998, lowest price in history. Queen size, 1898 standard, 1498. We have our MyPillow mattresses. The best mattresses you'll ever sleep on, 50% off. And by the way, the whole order ships for free right to your front door. Mattress toppers as low as 99.98. Then we have the bolster pillows, the body pillows, the go anywhere pillows. All of it on sale go to mypillow.com war room. You're gonna see another sale that collides with that, the Mega 2 sale. And then you're gonna find the Giza dream sheets as low as $29.98. Our 6pmy towel sets, $39.98. You have kitchen towel sets on sale. You have everything for the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom.

[Unknown War Room Posse Member]

Thank you. Let's go to the courtroom and Provo, you tell the about. Start

[Judge]

on electronic.

[Lowe's Advertiser]

All right.

[Judge]

Is it the audio working? All right, let's just take a brief moment. And just let me know when it appears to be working. While we're waiting, if you have any water bottles or such, feel free to drink them. It is a little bit warm in here today, so I will Be drinking from my water. So don't hesitate to use that if you need to. Is it working? Can you send them a link to the where this is being streamed so they have something to look at? I see. All right. All right, let's go ahead and continue. And let me repeat it just because it. The audio may have cut out. All counsel are expected to take reasonable measures to safeguard confidential communication. Such measures may include the use of screen protections on electronic devices and care to avoid the inadvertent capture of protecting privileged or private discussions by recording equipment or by those present in the courtroom. Second to. The court will address the camera operator and still photographer and I will invite you to come forward. All right. Today's. The purpose of this is to ensure clarity regarding the expectations governing today's proceedings. Could you both state your name for the record?

[Court Reporter/Clerk]

Yes.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Trent Nelson with the Salt Lake Tribune as the pool still photographer. John Wilson from KSL television video photographer.

[Judge]

Good morning to you both. Have you reviewed the court's standing decorum order?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes, your honor. Yes.

[Judge]

Do you understand the requirements set forth in that order as they apply to your activities today?

[Michael Burt (Defense Attorney)]

Yes.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

Yes.

[Judge]

Do you require additional time to review the order or to adjust equipment to ensure compliance?

[Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)]

No.

[Judge]

Do you anticipate any difficulty complying with the order or today or with the court's instructions?

[Joel Osteen]

No.

[Judge]

All right. Well, thank you. I appreciate your cooperation today. As we begin this morning, the court wishes to acknowledge the importance of the safety, dignity and well being of all those who are present or who may be present during these proceedings, including the parties, council, witnesses, court staff and members of the public. The court is also mindful of its solemn obligation to protect and uphold the constitutional rights of both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Kirk in furtherance of those important interests. All persons attending these proceedings are reminded that point portable electronic devices are not permitted in the courtroom or on the fourth floor. The court also expects every person in attendance will be treated with a dignity and respect to which they are entitled. Consistent with the court standing decorum order, all spectators shall remain quiet, civil and orderly during all times. Spectators shall not engage in conduct that is distracting, disruptive, provocative, disrespectful, uncivil or threatening in any manner. Spectators shall not make audible comments of any kind, shall not shake or nod their heads, and shall not make gestures or other visible reactions. During today's hearing. Spectators shall also not wear or display pins, buttons, signs, clothing, photographs or other items expressing support for or opposing to any person connected with this case or expressing any position concerning the status of this case as a Capital offense. The court appreciates the cooperation of all present in maintaining a courtroom environment that is safe, respectful, orderly, and faithful to the rights and dignity of every person involved. Turning now to counsel. Before we begin, I wish to acknowledge the professionalism, civility and competence demonstrated by counsel for both the defense and prosecution during yesterday's proceedings. It is evident to the court that each of you approach this matter with seriousness, preparation, and a deep commitment to your respective responsibilities. The court appreciates the care which you have taken in advocating for your positions and the respectful manner in which you have done so. Thank you. Do either party require the benefit of the record before we proceed?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

The state does, your honor.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

Mr. McBride will address the court.

[Judge]

All right. And just as a reminder, the microphones at council table are turned off to prevent the inadvertent capture of any communication. So if you would like to come forward. Thank you. And turning to Mr. McBride.

[Court Reporter/Clerk]

Thank you, your honor. Before this hearing, the defense moved to find Article 1, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution, Rule 7B, and Rule 1102 unconstitutional as it relates to the admissibility of hearsay and reliable hearsay. At this hearing, the issue was extensively briefed and argued. The court denied the defense motion to exclude the use of reliable hearsay at the preliminary hearing. That ruling is at docket number 631. In addition, defense counsel filed a standing objection on July 3rd. That's docket 678. The standing objection reasserted the arguments made in defendant's previous motion. Defendant continues to make these same objections throughout the testimony of each witness. I believe both the state and the court and everyone present knows that the defense objects to the use of hearsay or reliable hearsay at this hearing. On the point of preserving the objection that has been done. Defense counsel has filed their motion. They filed their standing objection throughout the proceeding. They have continued to make objections at this point. Further objection is unnecessary to preserve the record. And causes undue and unnecessary delay. This is needless delay, and we'd ask the court to acknowledge and the record to reflect the standing objection. And we also ask the court to give an instruction that continuing objections on this ground are unnecessary. Of course, if it relates to some other ground or is some item that's particular to a particular statement, that objection may be appropriate. But at this point, we feel that the repeated objections that have been made and already been ruled upon are unnecessary and cause undue delay. Thank you.

[Judge]

Mr. McBride to defense.

[Michael Burt (Defense Attorney)]

Good morning, your honor. Michael Burt for Mr. Robinson. We have no objection to that procedure. As long as the court makes A ruling that the objections are preserved. We do think it would expedite matters if we didn't have to repeat the standing objection. There may be particular objections that are not covered by the standing objection we've made, and so we ask permission to be allowed to make those objections as needed.

[Judge]

Thank you, Mr. Burt. Thank you. To both sides. I appreciate the presentation and your argument about this. The court takes no position in regards to whether the objection is made again and again or not. I leave that to the parties. I recognize the need to expedite this, and if both sides stipulate, I will adopt the request that the standing objection as it relates to 1102, Article 1, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution and all relevant authorities that have been cited have been noted, and the standing objection by defense is in place. However, if defense feels the need to do that in order to protect the constitutional rights of Mr. Robinson, the court will not prevent that nor stand in its way. This court is not is acting in the role of a magistrate and will allow the parties to move forward as necessary. But as noted, I will make that note that the standing objection has been noted for all of the yesterday's proceedings and will be in place throughout the rest of the preliminary hearing. Anything further or any need for the record given the court's statement not from the state?

[Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)]

No, you, Honor.

[Judge]

All right. Thank you. All right. The court acknowledges that the exclusionary rule is in effect at this time. Any witness who is subject to exclusion. Exclusion should be excused from the courtroom. And again, I will leave it to the parties to monitor the courtroom to ensure that if a witness has come in and they shouldn't be, that they are redirected. I invite Agent Hull to return to the stand to resume direct examination. And, Agent Hull, you are still under oath, Mr. Sturgill.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Thank you, Judge.

[Judge]

And before we begin, is there a way to dim these lights just a tad like we did yesterday? Perfect. Thank you. All right, as of yesterday, there is also a water bottle to your left. And if you wouldn't mind just making sure that microphone is directly in front of you. We want to make sure that the record pick kicks up your testimony today. Mr. Sturgill, your witness.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Thank you, Judge. Agent Hull, we're going to return to what has been mark stakes exhibit 12.1. There was reference to it yesterday. And I'd like to ask you again, have you reviewed that exhibit?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And if you wouldn't mind, just briefly remind us what. What that exhibit consists of. Your Honor, excuse me. We can't hear the wheels.

[Judge]

And that's that's what I hear, so let's go ahead and stop. I. I'm not hearing it, so let's. I'm going to have you repeat. Let's test it.

[Unknown War Room Posse Member]

Go ahead.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Check.

[Judge]

All right, I believe that. Thank you, Mr. Sturgill. If you wouldn't mind restarting so I

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

can do that, Judge.

[Judge]

Thank you.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Maybe bring the mic from the base a little bit closer to you. I don't know if that will help. All right, let's go ahead and go back to what's been marked as State's Exhibit 12.1. I'd asked you a moment ago if you'd reviewed that exhibit.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes, I have.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay. And would you just remind us what that exhibit consists of?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It's a compilation of videos that were part of the overall footage that was obtained from the Utah Valley University as part of the investigation.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And does that compilation video, from your point of view capture Mr. Robinson arriving to and visiting the UVU campus?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It does, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

On September 10th through the 11th, 2025.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Correct.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And again, I asked you this question yesterday, but did you prepare that video compilation?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I did not.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay. Do you know who did?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

The Utah County Attorney's Office does that

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

video, and I'm referring to 12.1 exhibit, states exhibit 12.1. Does it include all of the footage collected by the SBI from UVU?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It does not. No.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Does that video, again, 12.1, include all of the footage you collected from UVU that captures who you believe is Mr. Robinson walking around campus?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Not all of the footage?

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

No. You reviewed this compilation with Mr. Olson, correct?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Correct.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And in its entirety?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And he actually. And then you collected an 1102 statement from him?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I did, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And I believe that has actually been admitted in the evidence states Exhibit 12.3. Did Mr. Olson refer to that Exhibit 12.1 in his statement?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

He did, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay. I'm going to put on your monitor states Exhibit 12.3. And I asked that it be scroll down towards the very bottom. And I would ask that you read from the statement specifically what Mr. Olson said about states exhibit 12.1. And I want to narrow your focus, so I'm going to draw your attention about 3/4 down the page. There's a sentence that begins on the left margin. I have reviewed. Do you see that?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I do, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay. Would you please read that sentence?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I have reviewed states Exhibit 12.1, and the recordings are true and accurate, including timestamps, dates and camera labels. The only changes are some zooms and red highlights which were not part of the original Recording.

[Unknown War Room Posse Member]

Have you.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

I'm sorry.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Sorry, I didn't know if you wanted me to continue.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

No, that's good enough. Have you had a chance. Well, you review the raw footage yourself, is that correct?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Correct.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And does that comport with your viewpoint of that exhibit?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It does, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Have you had a chance to refer or. I'm sorry, review what's been marked as stakes exhibit 12.4?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And when did you review that exhibit?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

This morning.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And who did you review that exhibit with?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

With Kimberly Dufflon.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Was there any conversation about that exhibit?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

No, I was just shown the video.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay. Nobody asked you questions or suggested anything to you?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

They did not know

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

the. Did. Did you prepare that exhibit?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I did not.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Do you know who did?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

The Utah County Attorney's Office.

[Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)]

All right.

[Judge]

And.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And I'm referring specifically to what's been marked states exhibit 12.4. What. What is depicted in that video?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

That video is, again, a compilation of videos from the. The overall footage that was obtained from Utah Valley University for September 11th and September 12th.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And how does it compare to what's been marked as Stakes exhibit 12.1?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It appears to be the same footage. However, on this particular version, there were no circles or blurs that had been made to the video.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

How about zooming in and zooming out?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

No, there was no zooming or zooming out.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Does it appear to be identical to the raw footage that you've seen that portrays this particular part of the UVU surveillance video?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It does, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Judge, the state would move to admit what's been marked stakes exhibit 12.4.

[Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)]

Your Honor, we just object to the publication of this for all the reasons we argued yesterday. We think this video is going to play a big role in the trial, and to allow the public to see it now would seriously impact our ability to get a fair trial, and we're asking the court not to publish it.

[Judge]

Thank you. And Mr. And to all counsel, as it will apply to all counsel, when you are moving a piece of evidence. It's the three parts, whether admissibility into the record, to be published in the courtroom, to be published in the courtroom and captured by the media. So, Mr. Sturgill, as it's your request, what are you requesting?

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

First of all, clearly, I've moved to admit the exhibit. I'd ask. And, Judge, the presumption is that this is a public record and should be published. And so the state's position is that it should be published here in the courtroom, and it should be published in such a way that the media can capture it on video.

[Unknown War Room Posse Member]

All right.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

Your Honor, can I deter it on that?

[Judge]

You may. If you would, approach the lectern, please, and state your name.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

I'm David Reiman. I represent the news media. I didn't make an appearance because the news media technically aren't parties. But as you know, they do have the right to be heard on issues like this. And I've tried to keep that to a minimum. But since this is the first one coming up today, I thought it might be helpful to just address it again. There is a presumption not just that it be published in the courtroom as we talked about yesterday, because the participants or the spectators in the courtroom have a right to know what the court is viewing so that they can understand how you're making your decision. This seems like a very important piece of evidence. It doesn't seem like there is a basis to keep the people who are in the courtroom today from understanding why it's being introduced. It is not like the videos yesterday. My understanding at least is you can correct me if I'm wrong, but we didn't object to the videos that weren't published yesterday that were graphic. We didn't object to the non publication of the autopsy report.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

This.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

The argument here that Ms. Nestor just made is this seems really relevant. And that is precisely why it needs to be public with. The last thing I'll address is just emc. There is a presumption. It's a rule presumption, not a constitutional one, that EMC is allowed. And I think that for all the reasons that we've. We've briefed this for, your honor, several different ways, there needs to be a really good reason why, you know, if it's being published in a public proceeding, it in the courtroom, it should not also be, and it should not also be allowed to be published to the media.

[Judge]

So thank you.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

Thank you.

[Judge]

Mr. Sturgill, did you wish to respond or perhaps give a little bit more detail on what this video purports to show?

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Well, do you want me to par for that judge or have the witness.

[Judge]

I'll defer to you.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay, well, first of all, if I could take one step back. Let me ask you, I may have misheard, but let's just be clear about this video, the compilation video, it includes video surveillance from UVU campus from what

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

dates September 10, 2025, into the morning of the 11th, 2025.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And if you wouldn't mind, just describe in a bit more detail what this compilation includes.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

The compilation shows the movements of the individual believed to be Mr. Robinson on Utah Valley university campus, arriving and leaving in a vehicle, arriving and leaving on foot, and then returning and leaving and then attempting to gain access again in a vehicle, and his movements throughout the day are included in the videos. Also,

[Judge]

is there any footage of. Of the of the alleged shooting?

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

There is not. Judge okay.

[Judge]

I just want to clarify that. Ms. Nestor, given that additional information and anything further from defense.

[Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)]

Your honor. Mr. Mr. Burt's gonna he's the one who's been litigating all of the First Amendment issues. If he could address Mr. Ryman's argument.

[Judge]

Yes. Mr. Burt, if you wouldn't mind coming forward.

[Michael Burt (Defense Attorney)]

Judge I wanted to clarify one argument that was made by counsel for the media yesterday, and that was the rules. The rule 4.202.02 does not apply to the situation we're in right now, and that is wrong. The rule says that this rule applies to the judicial branch, and 4.202.02 J says the judge may regulate or deny access to exhibits to ensure a fair trial. So I think that rule does apply to our situation. And the Supreme Court in the Algier all G IER case 258 Pacific 3rd 589, applied the rule in the context of an evidentiary exhibit. And I know the court has not mentioned, since counsel made that argument, this particular rule, but I think it does apply here. And also applicable is the Supreme Court's decision in the Kearns case, which we talked about when we argued the motion for denying access to the cameras and that case, Kearns vs. Tribune Corporation, 685 Pacific 2nd 515, says that the standard the court ought to apply in determining whether an exhibit at a preliminary hearing should be sealed is one of a, quote, realistic likelihood of prejudice. And we rely on the evidentiary showing we've made in connection with our motion to exclude cameras that there is a realistic likelihood of prejudice. In this way. The court knows and has access to the media coverage up to the time when we litigated the motion concerning closing this hearing to the cameras. And the court knows that one feature of the media coverage has been a very pro prosecution bias of every story that is that has been published on this account. The court also knows from that coverage that that information is being widely disseminated. And you have found in connection with the shackling issue that the publicity in this case is is likely to reach jurors who will be part of our jury pool. And we've also submitted to the court a public opinion survey which shows that the prejudicial publicity that the media has already generated in this case has affected the jury pool. And so those are all factors the court can point to and rely on and conclude that publication of this particular exhibit should not be allowed because there is a realistic likelihood of prejudice to Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial. So under that standard and under the rule, the court ought to deny publication.

[Judge]

Thank you, Mr. Burch.

[Michael Burt (Defense Attorney)]

Thank you.

[Judge]

Any final argument from the parties before the court issues its ruling?

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

Your honor, can I be heard on that briefly?

[Judge]

Yes, you may.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

Thank you, your honor. David Reiman. I just wanted to clarify. I think. I don't know that Mr. Burton, I necessarily disagree about what he said about the rule. What we were talking about yesterday was something different. That is the portion of the rule that classifies records that are in the court file. It's not the same as what happens in a public hearing. And Mr. Burt referenced the portion of the rule that essentially just tracks the constitutional standard, which, of course, you know, controls here as to whether in this public proceeding it can be closed in any way and non publication of exhibits as a form of closure. So I don't necessarily disagree. I would just underscore a lot of what Mr. Burch has said has been briefed ad nauseam at this point, their position that publicity is incompatible with a fair trial. The Allgaier case he mentioned, you know, it's. I know that case. I litigated that case. It involved a confession that the court found public because you have so many other tools to cede a fair and impartial jury. And we have cited that case repeatedly. And so has your honor, I think, recognized it in your ruling saying pretrial publicity can coexist with the defendant's right to a fair trial. So the last thing I'll say is just that the constitutional standard that I think we're all agreeing applies here is weighty and difficult to overcome. And it is never satisfied, as we explained, by just generalized assertions that there's a lot of publicity out there. It's got to be something really specific. And they just haven't made that showing. And I certainly don't think that a video that apparently just shows the defendant walking around the UVU campus qualifies.

[Judge]

Thank you. Anything further,

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

judge, from the state? No, but I think I'd like to be crystal clear. You asked if there's any portion of this video that captures, and I believe you asked of the actual shooting. There's no video of that. There is video, however, and you've heard testimony related to this where the shooter goes to the top of the LOSI building, goes out to the edge of the building, low crawls and then leaves after what we assume is the shot being fired. That's as close as it gets. I don't know if that makes a difference. Judge. I just wanted to make the record clear, and I want to be crystal clear with your honor.

[Judge]

Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. As it is guiding for this court and making its ruling, I turn to Utah. Well, let's. Let me pull this up. So rule 4.202.02. I go down to. Well, first it says statement of the

[Unknown War Room Posse Member]

Rule

[Judge]

1, Presumption of Public court records. Court records are public unless otherwise classified by this rule. Two, public court records. Public court records include, but are not limited to. I'm going to go down to 2J exhibits. But the judge may regulate or deny access to ensure the integrity of the exhibit, a fair trial or interest favoring closure. And the court recognizes the importance of the constitutional rights of Mr. Robinson being upheld and protected. At the same time, the court also recognizes the importance of transparency and a proper balance to ensure that the constitutional rights of all parties are upheld. As it relates to this exhibit, I believe it's 12.4.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

12.4, yes.

[Judge]

Based off the representation of what is in that, the court differentiates this exhibit from the exhibits from yesterday, namely Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8, and Exhibit 9, as those are different in nature and those go to issues relating to Utah Constitution Article 1, Section 28, as it relates to the Declaration of Rights of Crime victims. And the court also recognizes Utah rule of evidence 1102, as it. That is the foundation that's being laid for the admission of this exhibit. Having taken in consideration all factors, the court rules that exhibit 12.4 is admitted into evidence and shall be played in the courtroom and may be broadcast by the media. We can proceed.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Thank you, Judge. Agent Hull, before we actually Watch State's Exhibit 12.4, I have just a few questions. Yesterday, you testified at the very beginning of your investigation that you focused on the video that captured the shooter on the top of the LOSI building. Is that correct?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

I believe you also testified that you began by working your way. And this is what I remember you saying. So correct me if I'm wrong, but you in essence testified that you began with that video and you started working your way backward and forward with the UVU surveillance video in an effort to trace the shooter steps on campus. Is that right?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Correct. Okay.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Would you mind explaining just in a little bit more detail what you meant by that tracking Forward and backward on that video?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yeah, we had a. We had a known when the shooting occurred. And as the officer testified, there was a video of an individual on the roof at the time of the shooting. And so the philosophy that we applied was to take what we knew and then work that forward through the timeline and backwards through the timeline to try and establish where the individual had gone from the rooftop or how the individual had come to be on the rooftop top.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And. And did that, for lack of a better term, did that bear fruit?

[Michael Burt (Defense Attorney)]

It.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Did you actually see from, at least in part, where he came from and where that shooter went?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes, more so where he came from. It was very limited after the fact.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

You. You testified yesterday that in reference, I believe, to what's mark stakes, exhibit 21, that you believe Mr. Robbins visited campus at least four times on the 10th and the 11th.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Correct.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And I think you reaffirmed that today. Did you do the same attempt, that is to track Mr. Robinson through UVU surveillance video during each of those four visits?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Or those other three visits? I guess.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes. On each occasion, we attempted to follow the movements of the individual throughout campus.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And did you. Did you, in fact, see Mr. Robinson on campus in surveillance video that is not included in States Exhibit 12.4?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes. There is additional footage of him on campus? Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay, I'm going to have displayed on your monitor. What you're going to see is a paused or a still image. And I'm going to ask if you recognize. Recognize what? You see that now, Agent Hall?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I do, yes.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

Okay.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Do you recognize what's displayed on your monitor?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes, it's footage from the university that was provided to us, particularly of the parking structure.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Does it appear to be states exhibit 12.4?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It does, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

So I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to have this video run. And if you don't mind, as it's running, probably going to be asking you some questions. And so this video has no audio, is that right?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

No, there's no audio on the cameras.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay, let's go ahead and start the video.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

Your Honor, it's just not up on the screen yet.

[Judge]

Let's go ahead and put it on all screens. No, I appreciate it is so it is admitted and may be published to the screenshot. And just want to make sure it's on your screen, Agent. All right. All right, Mr. Sturgill, you may proceed.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Appreciate that, Judge. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. What are we seeing here, Agent Hall?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

That's the vehicle that is believed to belong to Mr. Robinson arriving in the parking garage on campus.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

At what time in the morning? Well, what time of the day?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It's approximately 8:30 in the morning on September 10, 2025.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And what leads you to believe that this particular vehicle belongs to Mr. Robinson?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Information that was provided regards to driver's license and department of motor vehicle records. The vehicle fits the description of a vehicle owned by Mr. Robinson.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Is there anything unique about that vehicle that stands out to you?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

The shape of the vehicle is. Is very distinct, but predominantly the wheels were very distinctive on this version of the vehicle.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Now what do we see?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

The driver of the vehicle exits the vehicle and then walks on foot to exit the parking garage. It's the individual in the red T shirt and the shorts and the shoes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Do you believe you recognize who that person is?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Who is that?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I believe that's Tyler Robinson.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Where does he go from there?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

He heads out of the parking garage on foot into the campus and actually goes to the quad area of the campus. At that time, he makes contact with some representatives from TP USA by quad area. Sorry, the amphitheater is what I previously referred it to.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

All right, so he goes up on campus, visits the amphitheater area, the courtyard or quad.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Correct.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And then what do we see here?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Now he returns on foot back to the same vehicle.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And what time is he returning back to the vehicle?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It's about 9:25am.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And where is this parking structure located on campus?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It's just off of Campus Drive. It's a short walk from the from the amphitheater.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

What do we see now?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

That's the vehicle exiting with Mr. Robinson driving the vehicle.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Now what do we see?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

This is Mr. Robinson returning to the campus on foot from the neighborhood to the north end east. You can see he's wearing the same clothing as in the previous video and he's carrying a blue backpack.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Describe the clothing.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It's a maroon colored T shirt with gray or olive colored shorts and then Converse shoes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And what time did he return to campus? Just after 10am and does he leave the parking structure?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Eventually he does. Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And during this visit, do you know where he goes after he leaves the parking structure?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes. We were able to track his movements on campus. He went to Chick Fil a in the Sorensen Building, purchased some food, satinate the food. Then.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

I'm sorry, where did he purchase the

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

food from Chick Fil a? In the Sorenson Center.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And where is that in relation to the amphitheater or the courtyard?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It's kind of on the northeast side of the amphitheater. It would be on the upper back edge of the amphitheater, furthest away from where the tent was that Mr. Koch was in.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And from there, where does he go from there?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

He moves across campus, out across Campus Drive into a wooded area on what would be kind of the northeast side of Campus Drive, then returns back onto campus. We noticed at this point that he's no longer carrying the backpack that he was originally wearing. He moves through the Gunther Building and the Computer Science Building. And then.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

I'm sorry, and then goes where?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Then goes across the. To the railing that gives access to the roof of the LOSI building.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

From there?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

From there he comes back down the stairs and walks off campus from that point.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And about what time was that that he left campus that second time, do you know?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I believe it was approximately 11:00am or just after, if I recall. I could verify from my notes if you. If you need an exact time.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Yeah, if you don't mind. That'll help you remember. Refer to it. Don't read it out loud. Just let me know when you've had a chance to look at that, would you? Were you able to refresh your memory as far as the time?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I was, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And what time was it?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It was just prior to 11am when he walked off campus.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Before we go any further, the parking structure that he left initially, where is that parking structure in relation to the LDS Institute building?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I'm sorry? In relation to the LDS Institute.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Institute building on campus?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I think it would be just to the north of the LDS Institute building, if I recall.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Do you recall whether it was adjacent to the LDS Institute?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes, it is.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

All right,

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

what do we see displayed here now? Go ahead.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

This is a video of Mr. Robinson returning back to campus the same way that he did previously on foot.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And this takes just a moment. And why? Well, let me ask you this. You believe this is Mr. Robinson returning to campus?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I do, yes.

[Unknown War Room Posse Member]

Okay.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And why do you believe this, Mr. Robinson?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

The shoes are the same. And the images that we have are from my viewing and seeing Mr. Robinson on the video. It's the same person.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

He's noticeably wearing different clothing.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

He is wearing different clothing and he also is walking with a gate or a limp in this video.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

With a gate or what?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Limp.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Now, what do we see?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

This is Mr. Robinson coming up the stairs of the parking structure. Again, he seems to be having issues walking.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And again, we able to track. We able to track Mr. Robinson when he leaves this parking structure?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes, we were able to.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

So when he leaves the parking structure, where does he go?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

He Comes up around Campus Drive. As you can see on the video here, there is a cut through there north of the Losee building. And that's Mr. Robinson coming up the sidewalk. He has the noticeable gate or limp in his walk. And then he moves south across the front of the LOSI building.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

On the sidewalk?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes, Correct. He would be the rear of the two individuals in this particular video.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

So right now, if you were to break this picture into quadrants, where would he.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I have been? The top left quadrant. Walking to the left of the image.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Now, what do we see?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

This is an image looking across the parking lot to the losi building. And Mr. Robinson is appearing on the exterior staircase, which gives access to the Losey Building roof and the area where the railing was.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And again, let's break that image into quadrants. Where would he be located if you broke it into quadrants?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It's in the top right. And the individual can be seen moving under the notations that are on the video.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And what time is this?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It's just after noon, about 12:15.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

On what day?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

On December. Sorry, December. September 10, 2025.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

What just happened or what did we just see happen?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

The individual actually kind of rolls over the railing onto the roof of the LOSI building.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

All right.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

And again, in the top left corner, the individual is now seen running across the rooftop of the Loci Building to what would be the southwest corner of the building, crouching down and then crawling to the corner of the building.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And. And this is at what time?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Around 12:23, I think. The time stamp on the video is 12:22.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

On the 10th.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

On September 10th? Yes. 20:24.

[Stephen K. Band (War Room Host)]

We're clear.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

This is the roof of the LOSI building?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Correct.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Can you still see that individual?

[Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)]

Yes.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

You can. Lane prone.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

You believe this to be Mr. Robinson?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I'm sorry?

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

You believe this to be Mr. Robinson?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I do, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And how long is he out there on the edge of the building?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Just until the reported shot was fired at 1223 and 28. Individual then stands up and then moves across the building to the north.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Is that what we're seeing happening right now?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It is, yes. They move behind the atrium area on the rooftop to the northeast corner where the white triangle is.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Do you see Mr. Robinson now?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I do, yes. He's just arriving at the corner of the building, almost the top center of the image.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

What are we seeing now?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Mr. Robinson lowering and jumping off of the roof of the Losey Building onto the grass area and then moving away towards Campus Drive. He appears to be carrying some kind of an Object in his hand at this time.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

So he's approaching Campus Drive. And again, broken into quadrants. Where is he currently?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

In the top right quadrant.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And the time?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It's 12:24 and 42 on the timestamp.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

What do we see now?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

He then crosses Campus Drive and drops down into the wooded area on the far side of Campus Drive.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And that is located in what part of the video, what quadrant?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It would have been just off center on the top left side.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

What do we see now?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

This is the intersection of Campus Drive and 800 South. There's a vehicle attempting to turn right onto Campus Drive. That's the vehicle that's driven by Mr. Robinson.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And on this. On the screen, where is that vehicle that you're referring to located? If you broke it into quadrants, it's

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

on the left side on the. On the upper side. The upper quadrant.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Now what do we see?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

That vehicle's now pulling away and heading east on 800 South.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And why do you believe that that vehicle is Mr. Robinson's vehicle?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

When that vehicle was stopped, it actually made contact with an officer who was doing security detail.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Do you know who that officer is?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Officer Goforth.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay. And do you know which department he works for?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Spanish Fort, please.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And did you have a conversation with Mr. Goforth regarding this interaction at that intersection?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I did, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And what time was that interaction? I'm sorry, did I ask you that?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It was approximately 0:12:30am on the 11th, on September 11th, 2025.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

So you talked to Officer Gulfport about that contact on the corner on that, I guess, during the early morning hours of the 11th?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Correct.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And what did Officer Goforth tell you about that interaction?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

It was an interaction that, I guess cop intuition. But there was something about the interaction that made him make a note of the license plate of the vehicle. And then subsequently, when information was available that that vehicle or a vehicle matching the description of that was involved in the incident, he ran the information that he had obtained from the stop and was able to identify that it was registered to Mr. Robinson. And he had, in fact, had contact with Mr. Robinson on the morning of September 11, 2025.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

The. The information that he ran. Do you want information? He. When you say that he ran information.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes. He ran a partial plate.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

A license plate?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Correct.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And based on that partial license plate, he was. He was able to identify the. The owner of that vehicle?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And did he tell you who the owner of that vehicle was?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

He did, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay. And who did he tell you that it belonged to?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

There were two registered owners of the Vehicle, Tyler Robinson and an Amber Robinson.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Did he. Did he say anything about the person that he actually interacted with?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes, it was a male that he believed to be Tyler Robins.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Let's. Let's return again to what's been marked stakes exhibit 12.1. Again, you've reviewed that video.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And the difference between 12.1 or what's been marked as stakes exhibit 12.1 and 12.4, if I understand you correctly, are these enhancements that we've been talking about?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And specifically, what would be specific about the enhancements? And let's go one at a time.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Okay.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

I think there's a reference to either red circles or red highlights.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Correct.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

That's how Mr. Olson described it. Red highlights.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Do you know. Do you know what he's. What's. What is he referencing by the red highlights or what do you believe he's referencing?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I believe he's referring to red ovals or circles that were placed over the image to identify specific individuals of note.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And these red circles, are they permanent red circles? Are they temporary? Different?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I would assume they are temporary. I'm not very technological, but I believe they would be overlaid over the image.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

This is a bad question. What I mean by that is do they appear and disappear quickly or do they linger or last for a period of time?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

They're there for a notable period, but I believe they come off the video.

[David Reiman (Media Representative)]

All right.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And other than. Well, and you said that the circles, what do the circles do they identify

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

an area or a person of interest within the video.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And other than do that, do the circles or the highlights, do they do anything with regards to the video itself as far as accuracy?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Not to my knowledge, no.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

I think the next enhancement that has been mentioned that we've talked about is there's some blurring.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Do you know what that. Tell us what that is. What blurring do you see in state what's been marked as State's Exhibit 12.1 that you now don't see in 12.4?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

If I recall, there were some individuals in the parking garage footage and their faces were blurred.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Excuse me, Is anything other than faces being blurred?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Not that I recall, no.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And how often do you see the blurring throughout the video?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I believe it's just in the original sequence in the parking garage.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

The other than the blurring? Well, does the blurring other than obviously blur out part of the image, does it change or impact the accuracy in your mind of that part of the compilation video?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Not to my knowledge, no.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And then the last thing Is, I believe, is there some zooming in and in Zooming? Zooming out. That's in 12.1. That has been removed from 12.4. What can you tell us about the zooming in and the zooming out?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Predominantly, it's in the area that was referred to as viewing the LOSI building rooftop. I believe it focuses on the area where Mr. Robinson comes up the stairs and onto the rooftop. Those portions of that particular footage were zoomed in for clarity. Okay.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Other than zooming in and zooming out, does at least that enhancement to the video, does it change the content of the video?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

No.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

The accuracy of the video in your mind?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

No.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Okay. Is the. Are the enhancements in state's exhibit? Well, it's been marked as states Exhibit 12.1. Are they helpful in any way, or what do they add or take away from that video?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I think for people who are not familiar with the area and what's trying to be shown, they are now an opportunity for people to look at an individual who we believe to be Tyler Robinson, and also specific movements with more clarity than the original focal point gives.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

So let's talk about the zooming in and the zooming out. It sounds like it's specific to the LOSI rooftop, if I understand you correctly.

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

Yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And I think we've all watched that exhibit, and although you can see Mr. Robinson and his movements, is it fair to say that it's difficult to really see what's going on?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

That would be fair, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

And the version that's in 12.1, does it facilitate at least that part of the video, seeing Mr. Robinson and tracking, I guess, his steps?

[Agent Hull (Witness)]

I believe so, yes.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Judge, at this point, I think in combination with yesterday, the foundation that was laid yesterday, including the written statement from Mr. Olson, which has been admitted into evidence and is. Well, it's already been admitted into evidence. We believe there's enough foundation that at this point, we'd also ask the court to admit what's been March states exhibit 12 point. We think it would be beneficial for your honor to view it.

[Judge]

Ms. Nestor.

[Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)]

Thank you. Your honor, we renew our authenticity. Objection. And we also object to the. For admission purposes, and then we also object to the publication for the same reasons. The fair trial issues that we raised with the unaltered version that was just submitted and.

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Judge. Sorry, I neglected to mention the other two again. Judge, we believe that the presumption is that this is a public record, that it should be not only admitted, but it should be published here in the courtroom, and it should be published in such a way that the media can have access to it.

[Judge]

All right, I do have a question in just directing your attention to the Utah rule of evidence 403 to the last phrase, the last four words in that. Do you wish to address that?

[Mr. Sturgill (Prosecutor)]

Judge I'm gonna have to look at 403 specifically for those last I can

[Judge]

read that or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence so the court may let me just read the whole rule for completeness. The the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed

[Jack Armstrong]

by the Joel Osteen Daily Podcast.

[Joel Osteen]

God's plans for you are for good.

[Jack Armstrong]

Be inspired.

[Joel Osteen]

Get ready. God is about to exceed your expectations.

[Jack Armstrong]

Joel Osteen Daily Podcast.

[Joel Osteen]

You are coming out of that dry place into more than enough daily encouragement

[Jack Armstrong]

right when you need it.

[Joel Osteen]

There are opportunities in your future bigger than you can imagine.

[Jack Armstrong]

Listen to the Joel Osteen Daily podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Why should you listen to Armstrong and Getty on demand? We're not boring. A lot of news is boring and tedious and depressing and makes you angry. You don't want to live your life like that. Hey, I'm Jack Armstrong.

[Judge]

He's Joe Getty.

[Jack Armstrong]

We're Armstrong and Getty. We try to bring you the truth and help you figure out this crazy modern world.

[Judge]

How about something about a comedic tone?

[Jack Armstrong]

We have a winner. Yes, listen to Armstrong and Yeti on Demand on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Lowe's Advertiser]

Pros save more on what you need to get the job done right. Right now at Lowe's, get 15% off select custom entry and interior doors. Plus save $80 on the DeWalt 20 volt max 2 tool combo kit. Now just $169. And at the Lowes Pro desk, bring us your materials list and get a quote in minutes. Handwritten, a photo or even a sticky note is all you need. Keep your jobs moving faster and on budget at Lowe's. Valid through 7 8, while supplies last selection varies by location.