Utah’s Memorandum for Binding Tyler Robinson Over for Trial (Part 2) (8/3/26) - The Epstein Chronicles

Loading summary

Transcript15 lines

[00:00]
Commercial Narrator
When we've reached our limits of adulting, it's easy to long for simpler times, like enjoying Saturday morning cartoons without a care in the world or savoring every last drop of sugary milk at the bottom of your cereal bowl. Well, Cachava's new Cinnamon French Toast all in one nutrition Shake gives you all the nostalgic feels and benefits. Made with real cinnamon bark for the richest, deepest, most authentic flavor, just two scoops provide the complete nutrition your body craves. With protein, fiber, greens and more, it's an easy upgrade to your daily wellness ritual. No fillers, no nonsense, just the highest quality ingredients that taste delicious. Adulting may not always be fun, but at least you can stock up on treats without asking your parents for permission. So whether you're kickstarting your morning or fueling your afternoon, treat yourself to a sip of nostalgia. Go to kachava.com and use code NEWS for 15% off your first order. That's Kachava K A C H-A-V-A.com Code
[01:00]
Drew McIntyre
News Drew McIntyre here from WWE Wielding the Claymore can be a life of chaos when I'm not dominating in the ring. Chumba Casino is how this warrior takes a wee break. With hundreds of online social games and new weekly releases, there's always something fresh to try, and those daily boosts next level. Even my free time feels like Valhalla. So when life feels like a battle, kick up your feet, have some fun,
[01:23]
Chumba Casino Promoter
and let's Chumba no PURCHASE necessary VGW Group Void WHERE Prohibited by Law CTS CS21 Sponsored by Chumba Casino what's up
[01:31]
Legal Analyst
everyone, and welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're going to get right back to the binding memo that was filed by the State of Utah in their capital punishment case against Tyler Robinson. The Argument as magistrate, this court has but one duty left to determine whether the evidence admitted at the prelim hearing supports probable cause. To believe that the crimes charged in the information and have been committed and that the defendant has committed them. Utah Rules for Criminal Procedure p. 7B Utah Constitution Article 1, Section 12 stating that the function of the prelim hearing is limited to determining whether a probable cause exists. This isn't a closed case. The State presented more than enough evidence to support a probable cause finding on all seven charges. One at this stage, the State must demonstrate only probable cause, a reasonable belief that a crime was committed and that defendant committed it. In determining whether the State has surmounted this low bar, the court must view all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the state. The purpose of a prelim hearing is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Rather, its purpose is limited to ferreting out groundless and improvident prosecutions, thereby sparing defendants in those circumstances from the substantial degradation and expense incident to a modern criminal trial. State Vers. Anderson, 612 P.2d 778, 783 and 84, Utah 1980. The prelim hearing is a constitutional safeguard against unwarranted prosecution where it manifestly appears either that no such crime was committed or that the suspicion entertained of the prisoner is wholly groundless. Under the Utah Constitution, the line separating a valid prosecution from a groundless prosecution is probable cause. Utah Constitution Article 1 and 12 Limiting constitutional function of prelim hearing to probable Cause Determination if the evidence supports probable cause to be believed that the crime charged has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the magistrate must order that the defendant be bound over for trial. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required for criminal conviction, and it's lower even than a preponderance of the evidence standard applicable to civil cases. State vs. Clark, 2001 Utah 9, 1120, page 3d 300. Thus, a probable cause showing does not even require the prosecution to eliminate alternative inferences in favor of the defense. All that's required is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that defendant committed the charge crimes. A criminal prosecution is groundless only if the evidence presented at the prelim hearing fails to establish probable cause if the evidence is wholly lacking and incapable of supporting a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the charge crime. State vs Virgin, 2006 Utah 29 stated another way, the magistrate may decline bind over only when the facts presented by the prosecution provide no more than a basis for speculation. Importantly, the magistrate at a prelim hearing must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution. The magistrate has only a limited role in judging the credibility of the evidence. At a prelim hearing, a magistrate may disregard or discount the prosecution's evidence only if it's so contradictory, inconsistent, or unbelievable that it's unreasonable to base belief of an element of the charge defense on that evidence. Otherwise, a magistrate may not accept the defendant's version of the facts over the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from the prosecution's evidence. People vs Hall, 99 Page 2d 207, 221. According to Virginia, 2006 Utah 61, at 25 holding that the magistrate may not prefer one piece of credible evidence over a conflicting piece of credible evidence and making the bind over determination. Part 2. The state introduced ample evidence to demonstrate probable cause to believe the defendant committed all seven crimes charged in the information in this case, the State presented more than enough evidence so as to sail safely over the bind over standard on all seven charged offenses. A. The evidence establishes probable cause that defendant committed count one and aggravated murder. To establish that defendant committed aggravated murder, the state must prove that 1 defendant 2 intentionally or knowingly 3 caused the death of Charlie Kirk 4. Under circumstances in which defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than Charlie Kirk and defendant. Utah code section 76.52022 a.3. The evidence readily establishes probable cause to support each element. Element 3 Death. The evidence establishes and no one disputes that Mr. Kirk was killed on September 10, 2025 by a gunshot wound to the neck. Element 1 Identity. The evidence further demonstrates a reasonable belief that defendant was the shooter. Defendant repeatedly admitted that he shot Mr. Kirk using defendant's grandfather's rifle, including I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it. I'm the one who did it. I'm sorry. Why did I do it? I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. If I'm able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have moved on. I haven't seen anything in the news about them finding it. I've been planning this a bit over a week. I believe I'm wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got out of my vehicle because it sounds like the police couldn't get in for a long while because of the traffic. Remember how I was engraving bullets? The fucking messages are mostly a big meme. If I see notices bulge uwu on Fox News, I might have a stroke. Judging from today, I'd say Grandpa's gun does just fine. Idk I don't know I'm going to turn myself in willingly. Hey, guys. I have bad news for you all. It was me at UVU yesterday. I'm sorry for all of this. I'm surrendering through the sheriff's friend in a few minutes. It was me. Look at the pictures from the surveillance footage. It was me. I'm serious. Defendant also surrendered to law enforcement in connection with the shooting.
[08:32]
Commercial Narrator
How to have fun anytime, anywhere Step 1 Go to chumbacasino.com chumbacasino.com Got it. Step 2 Collect your welcome bonus.
[08:40]
Chumba Casino Promoter
Come to Papa. Welcome bonus.
[08:42]
Commercial Narrator
Step 3 Play hundreds of casino style games for free.
[08:44]
Chumba Casino Promoter
That's a lot of games all for free.
[08:46]
Commercial Narrator
Step 4 Unleash your excitement.
[08:48]
Chumba Casino Promoter
Woohoo.
[08:50]
Commercial Narrator
Chumba Casino has been delivering thrills for over a decade. So claim your free welcome Bonus now and live the chumba life. Visit chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary.
[08:58]
Chumba Casino Promoter
VGW Group void where prohibited by law 21 terms and conditions apply.
[09:02]
Thrive Cosmetics Advertiser
Some days call for some oomph to amplify your everyday look. Like when you want the look of false lashes without the extra effort, reach for Thrive Cosmetics Liquid Lash Volumizer Mascara or when you want all eyes on your smile. Keep Empower Gloss Ultra Glossy Lip Serum in your bag. It's a burst of 24 hour hydration that smooths like a serum, shines like a gloss and can be worn sheer or layered. You'll also look and feel your best with Thrive Cosmetics. Plus, every product is 100% vegan, cruelty free, and made with clean skin loving ingredients that work with your skin, not against it. And for every product purchased, Thrive Cosmetics donates to help communities thrive. So every time you use your favorite Thrive Cosmetics product, you're helping communities you care about too. Amplify your everyday. Go to thrivecosmetics.com shine2.6 for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. That's Thrive Cosmetics C A U S e m e t-I c s.com shine26
[10:04]
Legal Analyst
DNA testing supports the conclusion that Defendant contributed to the DNA samples recovered from the fired cartridge, the trigger and other parts of the rifle, the towel used to conceal the rifle, and the screwdriver recovered from the Losi Building's rooftop. Defendant's car was at the UVU campus on September 10 and 11, 2025, and not only did Defendant admit that he was the one depicted in the published screen captures from the UVU surveillance footage, Defendant's roommate and romantic partner confirmed that the individual in those screen captures showing the individual's full face definitely look like defendant. Element 2 mental state the State's evidence also demonstrates a reasonable belief that the Defendant intentionally or knowingly caused Mr. Kirk's death. A person acts intentionally with respect to a result of his conduct when it's his conscious objective or desire to cause a result. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct when he's aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. A criminal defendant's mental state is rarely susceptible of direct proof, but this case is exceptional because, as shown above, Defendant repeatedly admitted that he intended to cause Mr. Kirk's death by shooting him with a high powered rifle. He wrote to Mr. Twigs that he had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and he took it. He also texted Mr. Twigs that he'd been planning the killing for a bit over a week and that he killed Mr. Kirk because defendant had had enough of his hatred. Defendant also engraved the bullets that he loaded into the.30 06 caliber rifle. He also took some target practice before the shooting and engraved one cartridge found at his home with the words test shot. The circumstances of the shooting itself, when properly viewed in a light most favorable to the state, further demonstrate that the defendant intended to cause Mr. Couric's death by shooting him. Defendant first surveilled the campus. Then he changed his clothes and returned to campus with a rifle. Defendant used a screwdriver to assemble the rifle on the LOSI building. With that rifle loaded with four engraved cartridges, Defendant then crawled to a sniper perch on the edge of that roof to came at Mr. Kirk and pulled the trigger. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Defendant acted with the required mental state. Element 4 aggravating circumstance knowingly creating a great risk of death to another. The state's evidence, properly viewed, also demonstrates a reasonable belief that Defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to another other than himself and Mr. Kirk. Defendant fired a high powered rifle towards a crowd of thousands. Defendant created a great risk of death to everyone who was in his line of fire or who was near Mr. Kirk when defendant pulled the trigger. One defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to everyone in his line of fire. The Utah Supreme Court analyzed the great risk of death. Aggravator and State VSO Hurtado 2019 Utah 65. Reviewing its prior case law, the court recognized that this aggravating circumstance is met where another person is placed within the zone of danger created by the conduct that caused the victim's death. Some factors to consider in identifying this zone one, the temporal relationship between any actions the defendant may have taken towards the third party and the acts constituting the murder. Two, the spatial relationship between the third party, the murder victim, and the defendant at the time was of the acts constituting the murder and three, whether and to what extent the third party was actually threatened by the assailant, either by direct threats or by indirect means, such as the risk of stray or ricocheting bullets. Applying these factors here, the state's evidence establishes a reasonable belief that Defendant knowingly put several people within the zone of danger he created when he shot Mr. Kirk. Most significantly, Everyone in defendant's line of fire was within the zone of danger. The person questioning Mr. Kirk when defendant pulled the trigger was within defendant's line of fire. The questioner was just a few feet in front of Mr. Kirk and directly between the sniper's perch on the Losee building roof and Mr. Kirk. Thus, the spatial relationship between the questioner and Mr. Kirk put the questioner within the zone of danger. The questioner's proximity and placement relative to Mr. Kirk also created an indirect threat to the questioner given the risk of straying or ricocheting bullets. These same factors apply to several others who are directly behind the questioner and thus also within the defendant's line of fire. The defendant also demonstrates that defendant was not certain to hit only his target. Mr. Kirk defendant loaded his rifle with four cartridges and creating a reasonable inference that he anticipated that the first shot might miss. Moreover, evidence of defendant's target practice before the shooting shows that he did not always hit the bullseye. Indeed, some of his shots completely missed the paper target. And even if defendant had previously calibrated his rifle and scope, he had disassembled the rifle to transport it to the roof undetected and then reassembled it on the rooftop using the screwdriver he left there. One reasonable inference from these facts is that the reassembled rifle would not be as accurate as it previously was when it was cited in Wild One Piece. A defendant who shoots another knowingly creates a great risk of death to anyone within his line of fire. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had no trouble finding that the defendant and Watson knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victims of of the offense when, while shooting his ex girlfriend, her child was in a closet and the closet and the child were in Watson's line of fire. See also Silva vs State 60 so 3rd 959, 971 through 73 Florida, 2011, holding that defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to people who were in his line of fire. The risk to others was established by evidence that 12 to 14 others were were in the line of fire when the victim was killed. Commonwealth vs Buck, 709 A.2d 892, 894 Pa. 98 holding that evidence that defendant fired a single fatal shot at his victim while another person was in the line of fire could support a finding that the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another. State vs. Wood, 881 P.2d 1158 Arizona, 1994 en banc. Recognizing that while the grave risk of death to another factor applies only if the defendant's murderous acts itself put other people in a zone of danger. The Arizona Supreme Court had never, however, limited this factor to cases in which another person was directly in the line of fire. The evidence demonstrates that defendant here knowingly created a great risk of death to to the questioner and all others who were within his line of fire. The distance from defendant sniper perch to the tent where Mr. Kirk was sitting was approximately 410ft with 68 foot vertical drop. 410ft is less than the 415 foot distance from home plate to the center field fence at Coorsfield in Denver. And at approximately 137 yards is just longer than an American football field including its two end zones. From defendants perch, he could see the questioner and those directly behind him and presumably even hear the questioner. Because speakers had been set up to amplify the discussion. Defendant could certainly see these individuals through the sniper scope. Defendant was therefore aware of the existing circumstances, including all the people in his line of fire when he fired the fatal shot. Utah code section 762103 2. A person acts knowingly with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he's aware of existing circumstances. All right folks, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
[18:32]
Chumba Casino Promoter
Hey guys, it's Ryan. I want to tell you about my new pastime, Chumba Casino. Chumba Casino has been around for over a decade delivering the most fun you can have online. Play social casino style games for free, anytime, anywhere. So sign up@chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary. VGW.

Summary5 min read

The Epstein Chronicles

Host: Bobby Capucci

Episode: Utah’s Memorandum for Binding Tyler Robinson Over for Trial (Part 2)

Release Date: August 3, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the legal specifics of Utah's memorandum for binding Tyler Robinson over for trial, focusing particularly on the state’s arguments at the preliminary hearing phase of their capital murder case. Host Bobby Capucci methodically breaks down the evidentiary standards for probable cause, details presented by the state against Robinson, and how the prosecution substantiates each element of its seven charges, with special attention to aggravated murder. The analysis offers listeners a detailed glimpse into procedural law as it unfolds in a high-profile case.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Purpose and Standard of Preliminary Hearing

[01:31-04:30]
The episode opens by recapping the function of a preliminary hearing in Utah’s legal system:
- The magistrate's duty is to determine if there is probable cause—not guilt or innocence—for the charges.
- Probable cause is a low standard: only a reasonable belief is required that a crime was committed and the defendant committed it.
- The purpose: to filter out groundless prosecutions and spare defendants unnecessary trials.
- Quote:
  “At this stage, the State must demonstrate only probable cause, a reasonable belief that a crime was committed and that defendant committed it… The purpose of a prelim hearing is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.” (Legal Analyst, 01:37)

2. How the Court Should View Evidence

[04:31-06:43]
- The magistrate must interpret all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
- Credibility of evidence can only be discounted if it’s “so contradictory, inconsistent, or unbelievable that it’s unreasonable” to support a belief.
- Direct quote of legal precedent and explanation:
  - “A magistrate may disregard or discount the prosecution’s evidence only if it’s so contradictory, inconsistent, or unbelievable that it’s unreasonable to base belief of an element of the charge offense on that evidence.” (Legal Analyst, 05:15)
  - The magistrate “may not accept the defendant’s version of the facts over the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from the prosecution’s evidence.” (06:01)

3. Review of Evidence on Each Charge

[06:43-10:03]
- The State claims to have exceeded the threshold of probable cause for all seven charges.
- Focus on Aggravated Murder (Count 1):
  - To establish aggravated murder, the prosecution must prove (1) identity, (2) mental state (intent/knowledge), (3) causation of death, (4) aggravating circumstance (creating risk to others).
  - The death of Charlie Kirk by gunshot is not disputed.
  - Defendant’s Admissions:
    - Multiple direct admissions from the defendant, e.g.:
      - “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it. I’m the one who did it. I’m sorry. Why did I do it? I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” (Legal Analyst, quoting Robinson, 07:10)
    - Robinson's surrender and acknowledgment in messages and to law enforcement bolster identity and intent.
  - DNA evidence links Robinson to the weapon and crime scene.
  - Surveillance corroborates his presence, confirmed by Robinson’s roommate/partner.

4. Mental State and Planning

[10:03-12:47]
- Prosecution presented motive and planning:
  - Robinson explicitly confessed to planning the murder for over a week.
  - Engraved bullets (including one marked “test shot”) and prior target practice indicate premeditation.
  - He surveilled the campus, disguised himself, and assembled the weapon on scene.
  - “Defendant repeatedly admitted that he intended to cause Mr. Kirk’s death by shooting him with a high powered rifle.” (Legal Analyst, 10:19)
  - The defense is not required to disprove every alternate inference: probable cause is sufficient.

5. Aggravating Circumstance: Risk to Others

[12:48-18:31]
- To qualify as aggravated murder, prosecution must show Robinson knowingly created a “great risk of death” to others:
  - Robinson fired into a crowd, not just at Kirk.
  - The person interviewing Kirk was directly in the line of fire.
  - Others behind the questioner were at risk due to his angle and the weapon used.
  - Robinson assembled his rifle on site, possibly reducing accuracy — increasing risk of stray or ricocheting bullets.
  - Legal precedents cited: placing others in the zone of danger can meet the aggravator under Utah and other state cases.
  - Quote:
    “Everyone in Defendant’s line of fire was within the zone of danger… The person questioning Mr. Kirk when Defendant pulled the trigger was within Defendant’s line of fire.” (Legal Analyst, 14:50)
- Details about rifle ballistics and location (410 feet away, 68 feet up) illustrate both planning and the scope of danger.

6. Wrap-Up and Next Steps

[18:23-18:31]
- Capucci closes with a preview: further breakdowns in the next episode.
- Notes that all documents, referenced legal standards, and evidence are linked in the episode description.

Notable Quotes & Moments

“If the evidence supports probable cause...the magistrate must order that the defendant be bound over for trial. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Legal Analyst, 04:08)
Defendant’s chilling admissions, including:
“It was me at UVU yesterday. I’m sorry for all of this. I’m surrendering… It was me. Look at the pictures from the surveillance footage.” (Legal Analyst, quoting Robinson, 07:44)
“Defendant loaded his rifle with four cartridges, creating a reasonable inference that he anticipated that the first shot might miss.” (Legal Analyst, 15:57)
The vivid comparison:
“410 ft is less than the 415 ft distance from home plate to the center field fence at Coors Field in Denver… just longer than an American football field...” (Legal Analyst, 17:31)
(Underscoring both planning and the nature of the risk created.)

Important Segment Timestamps

01:31-04:30 — Overview of legal standards for preliminary hearings and probable cause.
04:31-06:43 — How the court should interpret and weigh prosecution evidence at the hearing.
06:43-10:03 — Review of evidence tying Robinson to the crime (confessions, DNA, eyewitnesses).
10:03-12:47 — Evidence of intent, premeditation, and explicit admissions.
12:48-18:31 — Demonstrating the aggravating circumstance: risk to other individuals.
18:23-18:31 — Host previews follow-up analysis in the next episode.

Tone & Style

Throughout, Bobby Capucci maintains a direct, methodical, and analytical tone, closely reading from legal documents and commentary. His approach is rigorous and unsensational, focusing on helping listeners understand the mechanics of a capital case at the pre-trial stage, while emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and the high evidentiary bar for proceeding to trial.

For more information and referenced documents, check the episode description.

Loading summary

Transcript15 lines

[00:00]
Commercial Narrator
When we've reached our limits of adulting, it's easy to long for simpler times, like enjoying Saturday morning cartoons without a care in the world or savoring every last drop of sugary milk at the bottom of your cereal bowl. Well, Cachava's new Cinnamon French Toast all in one nutrition Shake gives you all the nostalgic feels and benefits. Made with real cinnamon bark for the richest, deepest, most authentic flavor, just two scoops provide the complete nutrition your body craves. With protein, fiber, greens and more, it's an easy upgrade to your daily wellness ritual. No fillers, no nonsense, just the highest quality ingredients that taste delicious. Adulting may not always be fun, but at least you can stock up on treats without asking your parents for permission. So whether you're kickstarting your morning or fueling your afternoon, treat yourself to a sip of nostalgia. Go to kachava.com and use code NEWS for 15% off your first order. That's Kachava K A C H-A-V-A.com Code
[01:00]
Drew McIntyre
News Drew McIntyre here from WWE Wielding the Claymore can be a life of chaos when I'm not dominating in the ring. Chumba Casino is how this warrior takes a wee break. With hundreds of online social games and new weekly releases, there's always something fresh to try, and those daily boosts next level. Even my free time feels like Valhalla. So when life feels like a battle, kick up your feet, have some fun,
[01:23]
Chumba Casino Promoter
and let's Chumba no PURCHASE necessary VGW Group Void WHERE Prohibited by Law CTS CS21 Sponsored by Chumba Casino what's up
[01:31]
Legal Analyst
everyone, and welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're going to get right back to the binding memo that was filed by the State of Utah in their capital punishment case against Tyler Robinson. The Argument as magistrate, this court has but one duty left to determine whether the evidence admitted at the prelim hearing supports probable cause. To believe that the crimes charged in the information and have been committed and that the defendant has committed them. Utah Rules for Criminal Procedure p. 7B Utah Constitution Article 1, Section 12 stating that the function of the prelim hearing is limited to determining whether a probable cause exists. This isn't a closed case. The State presented more than enough evidence to support a probable cause finding on all seven charges. One at this stage, the State must demonstrate only probable cause, a reasonable belief that a crime was committed and that defendant committed it. In determining whether the State has surmounted this low bar, the court must view all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the state. The purpose of a prelim hearing is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Rather, its purpose is limited to ferreting out groundless and improvident prosecutions, thereby sparing defendants in those circumstances from the substantial degradation and expense incident to a modern criminal trial. State Vers. Anderson, 612 P.2d 778, 783 and 84, Utah 1980. The prelim hearing is a constitutional safeguard against unwarranted prosecution where it manifestly appears either that no such crime was committed or that the suspicion entertained of the prisoner is wholly groundless. Under the Utah Constitution, the line separating a valid prosecution from a groundless prosecution is probable cause. Utah Constitution Article 1 and 12 Limiting constitutional function of prelim hearing to probable Cause Determination if the evidence supports probable cause to be believed that the crime charged has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the magistrate must order that the defendant be bound over for trial. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required for criminal conviction, and it's lower even than a preponderance of the evidence standard applicable to civil cases. State vs. Clark, 2001 Utah 9, 1120, page 3d 300. Thus, a probable cause showing does not even require the prosecution to eliminate alternative inferences in favor of the defense. All that's required is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that defendant committed the charge crimes. A criminal prosecution is groundless only if the evidence presented at the prelim hearing fails to establish probable cause if the evidence is wholly lacking and incapable of supporting a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the charge crime. State vs Virgin, 2006 Utah 29 stated another way, the magistrate may decline bind over only when the facts presented by the prosecution provide no more than a basis for speculation. Importantly, the magistrate at a prelim hearing must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution. The magistrate has only a limited role in judging the credibility of the evidence. At a prelim hearing, a magistrate may disregard or discount the prosecution's evidence only if it's so contradictory, inconsistent, or unbelievable that it's unreasonable to base belief of an element of the charge defense on that evidence. Otherwise, a magistrate may not accept the defendant's version of the facts over the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from the prosecution's evidence. People vs Hall, 99 Page 2d 207, 221. According to Virginia, 2006 Utah 61, at 25 holding that the magistrate may not prefer one piece of credible evidence over a conflicting piece of credible evidence and making the bind over determination. Part 2. The state introduced ample evidence to demonstrate probable cause to believe the defendant committed all seven crimes charged in the information in this case, the State presented more than enough evidence so as to sail safely over the bind over standard on all seven charged offenses. A. The evidence establishes probable cause that defendant committed count one and aggravated murder. To establish that defendant committed aggravated murder, the state must prove that 1 defendant 2 intentionally or knowingly 3 caused the death of Charlie Kirk 4. Under circumstances in which defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than Charlie Kirk and defendant. Utah code section 76.52022 a.3. The evidence readily establishes probable cause to support each element. Element 3 Death. The evidence establishes and no one disputes that Mr. Kirk was killed on September 10, 2025 by a gunshot wound to the neck. Element 1 Identity. The evidence further demonstrates a reasonable belief that defendant was the shooter. Defendant repeatedly admitted that he shot Mr. Kirk using defendant's grandfather's rifle, including I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it. I'm the one who did it. I'm sorry. Why did I do it? I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. If I'm able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have moved on. I haven't seen anything in the news about them finding it. I've been planning this a bit over a week. I believe I'm wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got out of my vehicle because it sounds like the police couldn't get in for a long while because of the traffic. Remember how I was engraving bullets? The fucking messages are mostly a big meme. If I see notices bulge uwu on Fox News, I might have a stroke. Judging from today, I'd say Grandpa's gun does just fine. Idk I don't know I'm going to turn myself in willingly. Hey, guys. I have bad news for you all. It was me at UVU yesterday. I'm sorry for all of this. I'm surrendering through the sheriff's friend in a few minutes. It was me. Look at the pictures from the surveillance footage. It was me. I'm serious. Defendant also surrendered to law enforcement in connection with the shooting.
[08:32]
Commercial Narrator
How to have fun anytime, anywhere Step 1 Go to chumbacasino.com chumbacasino.com Got it. Step 2 Collect your welcome bonus.
[08:40]
Chumba Casino Promoter
Come to Papa. Welcome bonus.
[08:42]
Commercial Narrator
Step 3 Play hundreds of casino style games for free.
[08:44]
Chumba Casino Promoter
That's a lot of games all for free.
[08:46]
Commercial Narrator
Step 4 Unleash your excitement.
[08:48]
Chumba Casino Promoter
Woohoo.
[08:50]
Commercial Narrator
Chumba Casino has been delivering thrills for over a decade. So claim your free welcome Bonus now and live the chumba life. Visit chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary.
[08:58]
Chumba Casino Promoter
VGW Group void where prohibited by law 21 terms and conditions apply.
[09:02]
Thrive Cosmetics Advertiser
Some days call for some oomph to amplify your everyday look. Like when you want the look of false lashes without the extra effort, reach for Thrive Cosmetics Liquid Lash Volumizer Mascara or when you want all eyes on your smile. Keep Empower Gloss Ultra Glossy Lip Serum in your bag. It's a burst of 24 hour hydration that smooths like a serum, shines like a gloss and can be worn sheer or layered. You'll also look and feel your best with Thrive Cosmetics. Plus, every product is 100% vegan, cruelty free, and made with clean skin loving ingredients that work with your skin, not against it. And for every product purchased, Thrive Cosmetics donates to help communities thrive. So every time you use your favorite Thrive Cosmetics product, you're helping communities you care about too. Amplify your everyday. Go to thrivecosmetics.com shine2.6 for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. That's Thrive Cosmetics C A U S e m e t-I c s.com shine26
[10:04]
Legal Analyst
DNA testing supports the conclusion that Defendant contributed to the DNA samples recovered from the fired cartridge, the trigger and other parts of the rifle, the towel used to conceal the rifle, and the screwdriver recovered from the Losi Building's rooftop. Defendant's car was at the UVU campus on September 10 and 11, 2025, and not only did Defendant admit that he was the one depicted in the published screen captures from the UVU surveillance footage, Defendant's roommate and romantic partner confirmed that the individual in those screen captures showing the individual's full face definitely look like defendant. Element 2 mental state the State's evidence also demonstrates a reasonable belief that the Defendant intentionally or knowingly caused Mr. Kirk's death. A person acts intentionally with respect to a result of his conduct when it's his conscious objective or desire to cause a result. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct when he's aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. A criminal defendant's mental state is rarely susceptible of direct proof, but this case is exceptional because, as shown above, Defendant repeatedly admitted that he intended to cause Mr. Kirk's death by shooting him with a high powered rifle. He wrote to Mr. Twigs that he had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and he took it. He also texted Mr. Twigs that he'd been planning the killing for a bit over a week and that he killed Mr. Kirk because defendant had had enough of his hatred. Defendant also engraved the bullets that he loaded into the.30 06 caliber rifle. He also took some target practice before the shooting and engraved one cartridge found at his home with the words test shot. The circumstances of the shooting itself, when properly viewed in a light most favorable to the state, further demonstrate that the defendant intended to cause Mr. Couric's death by shooting him. Defendant first surveilled the campus. Then he changed his clothes and returned to campus with a rifle. Defendant used a screwdriver to assemble the rifle on the LOSI building. With that rifle loaded with four engraved cartridges, Defendant then crawled to a sniper perch on the edge of that roof to came at Mr. Kirk and pulled the trigger. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Defendant acted with the required mental state. Element 4 aggravating circumstance knowingly creating a great risk of death to another. The state's evidence, properly viewed, also demonstrates a reasonable belief that Defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to another other than himself and Mr. Kirk. Defendant fired a high powered rifle towards a crowd of thousands. Defendant created a great risk of death to everyone who was in his line of fire or who was near Mr. Kirk when defendant pulled the trigger. One defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to everyone in his line of fire. The Utah Supreme Court analyzed the great risk of death. Aggravator and State VSO Hurtado 2019 Utah 65. Reviewing its prior case law, the court recognized that this aggravating circumstance is met where another person is placed within the zone of danger created by the conduct that caused the victim's death. Some factors to consider in identifying this zone one, the temporal relationship between any actions the defendant may have taken towards the third party and the acts constituting the murder. Two, the spatial relationship between the third party, the murder victim, and the defendant at the time was of the acts constituting the murder and three, whether and to what extent the third party was actually threatened by the assailant, either by direct threats or by indirect means, such as the risk of stray or ricocheting bullets. Applying these factors here, the state's evidence establishes a reasonable belief that Defendant knowingly put several people within the zone of danger he created when he shot Mr. Kirk. Most significantly, Everyone in defendant's line of fire was within the zone of danger. The person questioning Mr. Kirk when defendant pulled the trigger was within defendant's line of fire. The questioner was just a few feet in front of Mr. Kirk and directly between the sniper's perch on the Losee building roof and Mr. Kirk. Thus, the spatial relationship between the questioner and Mr. Kirk put the questioner within the zone of danger. The questioner's proximity and placement relative to Mr. Kirk also created an indirect threat to the questioner given the risk of straying or ricocheting bullets. These same factors apply to several others who are directly behind the questioner and thus also within the defendant's line of fire. The defendant also demonstrates that defendant was not certain to hit only his target. Mr. Kirk defendant loaded his rifle with four cartridges and creating a reasonable inference that he anticipated that the first shot might miss. Moreover, evidence of defendant's target practice before the shooting shows that he did not always hit the bullseye. Indeed, some of his shots completely missed the paper target. And even if defendant had previously calibrated his rifle and scope, he had disassembled the rifle to transport it to the roof undetected and then reassembled it on the rooftop using the screwdriver he left there. One reasonable inference from these facts is that the reassembled rifle would not be as accurate as it previously was when it was cited in Wild One Piece. A defendant who shoots another knowingly creates a great risk of death to anyone within his line of fire. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had no trouble finding that the defendant and Watson knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victims of of the offense when, while shooting his ex girlfriend, her child was in a closet and the closet and the child were in Watson's line of fire. See also Silva vs State 60 so 3rd 959, 971 through 73 Florida, 2011, holding that defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to people who were in his line of fire. The risk to others was established by evidence that 12 to 14 others were were in the line of fire when the victim was killed. Commonwealth vs Buck, 709 A.2d 892, 894 Pa. 98 holding that evidence that defendant fired a single fatal shot at his victim while another person was in the line of fire could support a finding that the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another. State vs. Wood, 881 P.2d 1158 Arizona, 1994 en banc. Recognizing that while the grave risk of death to another factor applies only if the defendant's murderous acts itself put other people in a zone of danger. The Arizona Supreme Court had never, however, limited this factor to cases in which another person was directly in the line of fire. The evidence demonstrates that defendant here knowingly created a great risk of death to to the questioner and all others who were within his line of fire. The distance from defendant sniper perch to the tent where Mr. Kirk was sitting was approximately 410ft with 68 foot vertical drop. 410ft is less than the 415 foot distance from home plate to the center field fence at Coorsfield in Denver. And at approximately 137 yards is just longer than an American football field including its two end zones. From defendants perch, he could see the questioner and those directly behind him and presumably even hear the questioner. Because speakers had been set up to amplify the discussion. Defendant could certainly see these individuals through the sniper scope. Defendant was therefore aware of the existing circumstances, including all the people in his line of fire when he fired the fatal shot. Utah code section 762103 2. A person acts knowingly with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he's aware of existing circumstances. All right folks, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
[18:32]
Chumba Casino Promoter
Hey guys, it's Ryan. I want to tell you about my new pastime, Chumba Casino. Chumba Casino has been around for over a decade delivering the most fun you can have online. Play social casino style games for free, anytime, anywhere. So sign up@chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary. VGW.