UT v. Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Day 4

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (27:04):

Good morning. Thank you for the parties' patience. Court is now in session. Calling case number 251403576, State of Utah versus Tyler James Robinson. Counsel, please enter your appearances.

Mr. Grunander (27:22):

Chad Grunander, Ryan McBride, Lauren Hunt, David Sturgill, Chris Ballard for the state. County Attorney Jeff Gray also present.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (27:31):

Good morning.

Speaker 1 (27:39):

Good morning, Your Honor. Kathy Nester, Richard Novak, Michael Burt, and Staci Visser here for Mr. Robinson, who's seated at counsel table.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (27:46):

Good morning.

Speaker 1 (27:47):

Good morning.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (27:50):

Good morning, Mr. Robinson. And for the record, the court also recognizes the presence of Ms. Erika Kirk. Sorry. Good morning, Ms. Kirk.

(28:07)
All right. As you've probably come to expect, I do need to read the following as it relates to today's preliminary hearing. The court is mindful of the safety and wellbeing of all parties, counsel, witnesses, court staff, and members of the public who may be present. The court is also mindful of its duty to protect and uphold the constitutional rights of both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Kirk. To serve those important interests, the court reminds all persons who will be in attendance that portable electronic devices will not be permitted in the courtroom or on the fourth floor. And this prohibition does not apply to legal counsel and support staff for the defense or the state or the media in this matter or the equipment permitted under any controlling electronic media coverage order and includes the counsel for victim representative, Ms. Kirk.

(29:03)
I do ask the parties, the attorneys, if you will join me in turning off your ringer to ensure that we do not have any interruptions. So I am turning off my ringer and I invite you to do the same.

(29:20)
Every person who is in attendance today and every day will be afforded the dignity and respect due to them. And pursuant to the standing decorum order by the court, all spectators shall be quiet, civil, and orderly. Spectators shall not engage in any distracting, disruptive, provocative, disrespectful, uncivil, or threatening behavior of any kind. Spectators shall not make any audible comments of any kind, shall not shake or nod their heads, shall not otherwise make any gestures during the hearing. Spectators shall not wear or display pins, buttons, signs, clothing, or photographs expressing support for or against any person related to this case or to the status of this case as a capital offense.

(30:14)
All right. As we begin this morning, I've taken a lot of time to think about the comments made by the parties yesterday and there were additional briefings and a motion filed last night, and the court took the necessary time to readdress it and look at it and be prepared for this morning's proceedings. While I recognize especially how precious our time is, I also recognize that I need to be prepared for everything that's before me and I took the time this morning to review what was filed since we adjourned yesterday until we've came back on record. One of the motions filed last night was filed by Ms. Erika Kirk's attorney and I wish to address that. And I realize that the parties may not have had a chance, for defense or prosecution had a chance to respond to that. And before I address that, I wish to turn the time to you if you need the benefit of the record as it relates to what was filed by the attorney for victim representative Erika Kirk to this state.

Christopher Ballard (31:51):

Good morning, Your Honor. Christopher Ballard on behalf of the state. We have reviewed that filing and we believe that it fully accords with our position in our filing this morning that publishing exhibits to the courtroom is entirely appropriate and indeed honors the victim representative's right to be present at this hearing.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (32:16):

Thank you, Mr. Ballard. To defense, Mr. Novak.

Richard Novak (32:23):

Thank you, Your Honor. I read the pleading. I believe that every order that this court has made to date complies with and respects the victim's rights under the Utah Constitution. I think that the rulings that the court has made the last few days do so. And I don't believe that the issues that are presently before the court going forward with the hearing with respect to exhibits in what I'll just call the 16 series interfere with any of the enumerated rights set forth in the Utah Constitution concerning the rights of a victim representative in any criminal proceeding. So that's our position.

(33:13)
And I want to also be very mindful of timing issues because we spent a lot of time arguing without the court having the benefit of briefing yesterday. But we have witnesses we have to get to, including a defense witness who is not available after tonight. So I could of course, as Your Honor knows, say much more, but the court has all the briefing and I think we should move forward.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (33:39):

Thank you. And as it relates to transparency and publication, does the news media wish to be heard on this issue?

Speaker 2 (33:53):

Only briefly, Your Honor. I've also reviewed the submission from yesterday. The court has always set this three step process and I think taking-

Speaker 2 (34:00):

The court has always set this three-step process and I think taking each of those stages, admissibility, publication to the courtroom, and coverage by the in-court cameras are three separate inquiries. Of course, the media will be the party who stands here at this lectern and says we believe we should see as much as possible. We're maximalist in that way while recognizing the importance of protecting all the rights, including fair trial rights. But the idea of publishing something, of keeping something off of the cameras at the rear of the courtroom, but publishing it to those who are present here also is a meaningful step towards transparency.

(34:43)
And to the extent that the court is not comfortable with placing something on the video feed, the media does believe that allowing the media representatives who are here and the members of the public who are here to view that, even if those watching on a live stream cannot, is a meaningful victory for transparency and we of course support that.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (35:00):

Thank you. All right.

Richard Novak (35:05):

Your Honor, the state would like to be heard on the briefing briefly.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (35:09):

For...

Richard Novak (35:10):

The briefing that was submitted last night.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (35:12):

All right. So I want to address the motion filed by the attorney for the victim representative and then we'll transition to that. I'm just trying to do it incrementally so we can get it all addressed. So in regards to that, and I appreciate the position of the parties, it is important for me to hear all sides. "Article I Section 28 of the Utah Constitution recognizes important rights afforded to victims and victims' representatives, including the right to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity and the right to be present and heard at critical stages of the proceedings. The court acknowledges the concerns raised in the motion regarding transparency and the ability to meaningfully observe the evidence presented during this hearing."

(36:03)
"At the same time, the court has an independent obligation to manage these proceedings in a manner that safeguards the rights of all parties. That includes honoring the rights of victims and victims' representatives while preserving the defendant's constitutional rights, including the right to a fair and impartial process. The court has considered the request that exhibits be displayed in real time to the courtroom. After careful consideration, the court determines that not all exhibits will be visually displayed to the gallery and notes that it will use a tiered method as described. First, whether it will be admitted to the court for consideration as it relates to probable cause. Second, whether it will be displayed only to the gallery. And third, if it will be published through the camera to the public at large."

(36:57)
" This ruling is not intended to diminish the significance of the victim's representative rights or concerns. Rather, it reflects the court's responsibility to regulate the presentation of evidence in a matter consistent with the integrity of the proceedings and the fair trial rights implicated in this manner. The manner in which evidence is displayed remains in the court's discretion. That discretion must be exercised in a manner that is appropriate and appropriately balances Mr. Robinson's constitutional rights, Ms. Kirk's rights as a victim representative, and the court's obligation to conduct the proceedings that are fair, orderly, and appropriately transparent. Transparency is an important principle, but it must be maintained in a manner consistent with the constitutional rights and protections afforded to all parties. The court does not make a blanket ruling as it relates to any exhibit. And as previously stated, each exhibit will be afforded its own due in weighing whether it shall be published to the courtroom or beyond or not."

(38:16)
And that concludes the court's ruling on that motion. All right, Counsel, the last matter as it relates to the briefing, I'll hear that and there is a slight edit to, and I'm not sure when the state wishes to publish state's exhibit 16. So turning to the state, do you wish to be heard about the motions filed last night prior to the publication of exhibit 16? Again, it's your choice on how you move forward. I just want to see which order you want to go.

Christopher Ballard (38:55):

We do want to be heard on the briefing from last night and specifically about exhibit 16. I'm understanding Your Honor has an additional edit to that. Is that correct?

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (39:06):

I do. And there might be a value in hearing that, so that may or may not change your positions. So let me just put that on the record and then I'll hear from you. I just want to make sure you're able to be afforded everything. So as it relates to the edits last night, I believe it was between six minutes and 57 seconds, and 20 minutes and 29 seconds, which is not to be played. And then 32 minutes and 55 seconds to 35 minutes and 47 seconds, which is not to be played. And I believe that what I received reflects that. And is that the understanding of the parties?

Richard Novak (39:50):

Yes.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (39:51):

All right. The state has said yes. The defense? I'm not saying if you agree with it. I'm just saying does it reflect the timestamps?

Richard Novak (40:00):

May I have a moment?

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (40:01):

Absolutely.

Richard Novak (40:24):

Go ahead, Your Honor, and then let's just see what the court is referring to.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (40:31):

Well, I'm asking, did you receive a copy of the edited video?

Richard Novak (40:35):

Okay. So I'll answer that question directly. The state sent us a copy of the edited video. The redactions of the audio were exactly as the court ordered, but we noticed that the video which followed ended up being inconsistent with the redactions of the audio, so I brought that to the state's attention last night. I believe that they ultimately forwarded to the court what I'll call version two of the redactions, which redacts the video that would have made the audio redactions sort of superfluous or ineffective. So that's sort of where we are. But we may be not communicating with each other about the same issue. I'm not sure.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (41:21):

Well, I just want to make sure that in regards to what was to be cut out comports with those timestamps I just gave.

Richard Novak (41:29):

It does. Plus, the parties believe that additional video needed to be cut out to match the court's intentions with respect to the audio.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (41:38):

Right. And this is where I'm going to next. Mr. Ballard?

Christopher Ballard (41:42):

Yes, Your Honor. I think we're on the same page. We did, in conjunction with discussions with the defense, prepare. First of all, we prepared the redacted video as Your Honor ordered. Then after discussing with the defense, we prepared a second version that still maintained the audio redactions as the court ordered, but we took out the video portions that the defense brought to our attention.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (42:09):

All right. And I didn't see that, and this is the court's own independent finding after spending significant time last night reviewing it. So I'm requesting video-only redaction between 20 minutes and 29 seconds, and 25 minutes and 23 seconds. And so what I looked at was what was on-screen. So any video showing anything other than Mr. McBride and Lance Twiggs was to be redacted with the exception of the screenshots of the images pulled from the surveillance video and the FBI bulletin, which I believe was also briefly displayed.

Richard Novak (43:01):

I think we're all on the same page based on what the court just said.

Christopher Ballard (43:16):

Your Honor, I think we have just a one-second difference. Our timestamp is 25:22 of the additional edited version, but I think it still omits the video portion that we're discussing.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (43:32):

All right. Well, it's a good day when we are literally on the same page. I'm glad that within one second we are all in agreement about this. And it sounds like you're one step ahead of the court. I was going to say that if you had it, you simply turn off the monitor for that section. But if you've already made that change, then all the better. There are two additional changes as well. And this is very short and so I'll leave it to the state if you wish to just in real time pause and fast-forward or wish to redact it. I'll leave it to you. So the additional requested audio and visual redaction, so this is not to be played whatsoever, is 27 minutes, 18 seconds to 27 minutes and 25 seconds. And the second is 28 minutes and 11 seconds to 28 minutes and 18 seconds.

Christopher Ballard (44:39):

Your Honor, just to make sure that we've got that correct, the additional redactions would be 27 minutes and 18 seconds to 27 minutes and 25 seconds?

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (44:51):

Correct, for the first one.

Christopher Ballard (44:56):

And then 28 minutes and 11 seconds to 28 minutes and 18 seconds?

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (45:02):

Yes.

Christopher Ballard (45:03):

And, Your Honor, while we're talking about additional redactions... Let me approach. When Your Honor made his ruling yesterday afternoon, it wasn't entirely clear the basis for these redactions that the court proposed. The state's understanding was that those additional redactions were based on the potential that the video 1102 would be showing duplicative evidence, would be displaying evidence that would be duplicative of future exhibits. And then also potentially a concern about admissions by the defendant. Portions that the court has ordered to be redacted do not have any of those concerns as far as the state's view of that evidence, and I would like to be able to point the court to those. We've got two brief portions that we believe don't implicate those concerns and should not be redacted.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (46:24):

All right.

Christopher Ballard (46:26):

Does Your Honor have the transcript in front of you?

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (46:29):

I do.

Christopher Ballard (46:48):

Okay. Well, first of all, at the very, very bottom of page 10, beginning with the words, "Was he?" And then over to page 11 down to timestamp 16:46. That portion is not cumulative of additional exhibits and it contains nothing that could be classified as an admission by the defendant. That's the first portion.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (47:25):

So going back to page 10, I don't see, "Was he?" At the bottom. Where are you? How many lines from the bottom up are you referring to?

Christopher Ballard (47:38):

[inaudible 00:47:39].

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (47:39):

You may. Oh, I see. Right here. Okay. Now I see what you're saying. I missed that. I was looking at the beginning of the line, but I see your point. Okay. So from, "Was he?" On page 10 until?

Christopher Ballard (48:02):

The timestamp 16:46 on page 11.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (48:05):

Okay.

Christopher Ballard (48:07):

That's the first portion. And then the second portion that we would ask not be redacted is a small portion of page 19. And it begins... Let's see. It would be the fifth paragraph down, Mr. McBride stating, "Okay." And then ending at timestamp 33:40. Again, that's not cumulative of any anticipated exhibit and nor does it refer to any admission by the defendant.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (48:51):

Thank you.

Richard Novak (48:57):

May I be heard?

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (48:59):

Yes, you may.

Richard Novak (49:12):

Thank you, Your Honor. With respect to the first of the two portions that Mr. Ballard referenced, I want to be totally transparent with the court, of course, that that was not a section that we asked the government to agree to redact. That is a section that the court independently determined was appropriate for redaction under the various principles that the court has enunciated. So I just want to be transparent about that.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (49:43):

Thank you.

Richard Novak (49:44):

The second portion that Mr. Ballard addressed, which is on page 19, we did suggest, and it is in our highlighted redacted transcript.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (50:03):

I see that.

Richard Novak (50:04):

And the court agreed with us. This is not relevant. This is not admissible under 403. I don't understand how this questioning by Mr. McBride and the answers to these questions by Mr. Twiggs, and now I'm going to quote the Utah Rule of Evidence, "Has any tendency and reason to make a fact of consequence more or less true." That's the relevance question. So I understand that the court has said, "I can make determinations of which portions of this transcript to rely upon." But from my perspective, what the state is asking the court to do is to broadcast a portion of the transcript which we are saying is not relevant. And to the extent it has any relevance is significantly outweighed by undue prejudice.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (51:09):

All right.

Richard Novak (51:10):

I am not Mr. Twiggs representative, but I think as a witness who has counsel, there might be something that Mr. Twiggs counsel would want to say about this as well. I don't know what it would be, but my firmly held belief is it would be consistent with what I'm saying, which is that it is neither relevant nor probative of anything of significance, especially in compared to the undue prejudice. Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (51:46):

Thank you, Mr. Novak. Mr. Ballard?

Christopher Ballard (51:53):

Thank you, Your Honor. As Mr. Novak recognized, Mr. Twiggs was represented during this statement. His counsel knew that this was being prepared to be produced in court and his counsel made no objections to this part of the interview. And this is critically relevant. It provides important foundational information about Mr. Twiggs and identifying information about him. And then also, it's very relevant to the enhancement that we have charged.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (52:39):

All right. Thank you. Anything further before the court rules on these two requests? All right. In reviewing the first section, again, citing to page 10, and I know to anyone listening, this may not make sense when I'm saying page 10, but it's roughly just a few seconds after 15:39 on the video starting with, "Was he?" And ending at 16:46 with the last word, "Asking," after hearing and considering what has been argued, the court agrees that in applying a balancing test and as it relates to transparency, to ensure the court is taking a very narrow approach in what is or is not published to the public, that this is permissible. It doesn't run afoul of the issues that the court addressed previously that the court is trying to avoid by publishing portions. And in addition to that, independently of the court's decision making, it appears that the parties also agree as it relates to the first requested edit to unredact or to allow in. So I am ruling that that may be played and published through all mediums in the courtroom and via video.

(54:33)
Turning to the second section, this is page 19. It is roughly right after 33:27 going to just before 33:40.

Christopher Ballard (54:53):

Sorry, Your Honor, just to clarify, what we asked was just before 33:07.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (54:59):

33: 07?

Christopher Ballard (55:02):

Correct. Yeah. Yes. Right after 32:55 where Mr. McBride states, "Okay."

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (55:16):

I see. Thank you. Let me just take a quick second to review this.

(55:27)
In relation to that request from right after 32:55, starting with, "Okay," is that the spot you're talking about, Mr. Ballard?

Christopher Ballard (55:37):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (55:38):

All right. And specifically to 33:27, the court stands by its original ruling. There are several reasons why the court... The court's ruling isn't whether it's relevant or not. It's whether it should be published or not. And again, as previously stated, the entirety of Exhibit 16 the court is receiving without any redactions or edits. The court is considering it as it weighs probable cause. However, for publication, the court finds that the requested section from roughly after 32:55 starting with, "Okay." Ending at 33:27, the court finds that there are interests served by not publishing this to the courtroom or to be broadcast.

(56:49)
And I recognize Mr. Novak's statement as it relates to what Mr. Twiggs' counsel may or may not assert, but the court finds independently that this portion shall not be transmitted into the courtroom because of certain statements made in there that do not serve the interest of justice for publication. However, the court finds from 33:27 starting at, "Okay," until just before 33:40. I'm sorry, up to 33:40 may be published. Did that notation make sense?

Christopher Ballard (57:51):

Did to the state, Your Honor.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (57:52):

All right. To defense?

Speaker 2 (57:54):

Understood.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (57:55):

And so this is the appropriate balancing of being transparent while at the same time maintaining the constitutional rights or balancing the constitutional rights of all parties and what is appropriate for publication. And this may be published not only to the gallery, but to the media as well that goes beyond the gallery itself. All right. Anything further on state's exhibit 16?

Christopher Ballard (58:29):

Not from the state, Your Honor. Thank you.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (58:32):

All right. And I note defense is nodding their head as well and not indicating any more is needed to be discussed at this point. All right. I think we've put state's Exhibit 16. We've addressed it. Turning to the state.

Christopher Ballard (59:00):

Thank you, Your Honor. We would just like to briefly emphasize a few points in the briefing that we filed early this morning. Last night, the defense raised the issue of publishing admissions by the defendant or confessions. They cited to one sentence from the United States Supreme Court opinion in Estes v. Texas that relies on the Rideau v. Louisiana case. And that one sentence in Estes has no precedential value on the issue that's before the court today. Estes cited to the dissenting opinion in Rideau, which is very curious because that dissenting opinion, Rideau was a change of venue case. And what the dissenting opinion held is that the court properly refused to change venue in that case even though the defendant's confession had been televised multiple times. So it's puzzling that that's what the Estes court would rely on as supposedly constructing some kind of rule about publishing a defendant's admissions.

(01:00:38)
In addition to that, Estes has no analysis of that point from Rideau. Again, it's just one sentence. And Estes itself was a case about televising a trial. It wasn't about pretrial publicity of a defendant's admission or confession. And as we noted in the brief, subsequently the Supreme Court has limited, although it hasn't expressly overruled Estes, it's limited that case to its very narrow facts, so it's difficult to see what precedential value that one sentence from Rideau could have on this issue before the court. Even if it could have some applicability here, the circumstances in Rideau are starkly different from the circumstances here, the types of statements from defendant that we're talking about.

(01:01:43)
In Rideau, what the police did was orchestrated a recording of an uncounseled, unmirandized police interrogation. The police recorded that interrogation. It was leading questions. They recorded the defendant answering those leading questions. And then they immediately, it was the police that immediately released that recording to the press who then publicized and televised that. The defendant confessing to police, answering the police's questions. That's not the types of statements that we're dealing with in this case. What we're dealing with are statements that defendant voluntarily made to close friends and associates of him and his roommate.

(01:02:41)
Sorry, just one other point about Rideau and that dissenting opinion. It's interesting that in that dissenting opinion, that judge that the court relied on in Estes continued on in his opinion and said, "It's an impossible standard to require that a trial court be a laboratory that's completely sterilized and free from any external factors." So, again, it's hard to see how Rideau has any precedential value. And even if it did, the circumstances are completely different from the types of statements that we're dealing with here. The state has also cited to several other courts that have easily distinguished Rideau and have made it clear that there is no blanket ban on publishing, especially just in court, a defendant's voluntary admissions.

(01:03:42)
I think the most interesting case is the Sixth Circuit case because there it dealt with essentially the issue that we're dealing with here, which is publication of a defendant's statements during a preliminary hearing. And that case is especially important, the Delisle case, because there that confession was ultimately held to be inadmissible. So an inadmissible confession was played to the public and interested media members in a way as if it had been played in a preliminary hearing. And even though that confession was subsequently publicized and ultimately held to be inadmissible at trial, the court did not hold that that was a violation of the defendant's fundamental rights there, that the court could deal with that through voir dire. It was not inherently prejudicial.

(01:04:47)
And then the state has also cited to the Ohio case of Mammone and then also the Alabama case, Burgess v. State, where those courts reached essentially the same holdings, easily distinguishing the Rideau sentence from Estes and making it clear that there's no blanket ban on publishing a defendant's admissions. And also, that Rideau is easily distinguishable because the court can deal with those pretrial publicity issues in the way that we've discussed several times already through the tools that the court has available in selecting the jury.

(01:05:34)
I think it's also important to point out that transparency is critical in this case. This court's noted repeatedly the extensive media coverage. That's why we're having to take this additional time in these hearings to be able to discuss these issues. And transparency is critical to the state's right and the people's right to a fair trial where there's a vacuum in the evidence. It just fuels speculation. And then finally, as has already been argued, it's critical to the victim's right to be able to attend the hearing. That's a hollow promise if the victim representative is only able to be here physically, but then is shielded from some of the evidence. Does the court have any questions?

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:06:32):

No, not at this time.

Christopher Ballard (01:06:33):

Thank you.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:06:39):

Mr. Novak?

Richard Novak (01:06:40):

Thank you, Your Honor. The parallel between Mr. Robinson's case and the Rideau case is this. Mr. Rideau's confession was televised by an act of the state. It wasn't a confession broadcasted through a courtroom. It was a confession made to law enforcement and then broadcasted by action of the state. And that's what gives rise to the constitutional problem, which is its state action which violated Mr. Rideau's right to a fair trial.

(01:07:20)
This court has granted the media's request to electronically publish this entire proceeding, that state action. And the state has supported the media's request over Mr. Robinson's objection. So that is also state action. So that's the parallel. If there were no cameras in this courtroom, we would not have a problem. And in fact, Ms. Kirk's attorney's briefing seeks a remedy which has nothing to do with the cameras in the courtroom.

Richard Novak (01:08:00):

... nothing to do with the cameras in the courtroom. What Ms. Kirk's counsel seeks is the opportunity for people in the courtroom to see the evidence. So the state is going even further than Ms. Kirk's counsel. The state wants to publish what it calls confessions in the same way, essentially that the state published Mr. Rideau's confession. Now, the only other thing I want to talk about is that Mr. Ballard's correct that the blanket rule that there is unrebuttable prejudice that's stated in Rideau. We could talk about why dissenting judges say, "Oh my God, the court has established a rule and I don't like it." That's what's going on there. But it was in the Skilling case, a Supreme Court decision in 2010, where the court said, "Yes, we really are going to let judges decide whether potential juror exposure to pretrial publicity makes them unable to serve." But there is an extreme case. That's not my language. That's the Supreme Court's language in Skilling. There are extreme cases of pretrial publicity where prejudice is going to be presumed.

(01:09:39)
And so that's obviously about what has to be proven in terms of the prejudice. But when it's an extreme case, what the Supreme Court is saying in Skilling is there's a presumption. And I believe that this court has already made findings over the last nine months that this is an extreme case with respect to the quantum of pretrial publicity, the way in which it's being monitored by the public, the speed with which these proceedings, even this week, are being dissected and broadcast through all of the technology channels that we have. So it's our view that this is the extreme case that the Supreme Court talked about in Skilling. We wouldn't have any state action giving rise to this problem if we didn't have cameras in the courtroom. And that's why we think that exhibits 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 need to be managed in the way we've asserted. Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:10:51):

Thank you. Mr. Ballard.

Christopher Ballard (01:10:58):

Thank you, Your Honor. Just briefly, Mr. Novak has misrepresented the state's position. We're not going beyond what the victim representative has asked for. As we made clear in our briefing this morning that we filed this morning, we are asking that these exhibits, unredacted, be published in the courtroom. Not electronically, but they'd be published in the courtroom. It's not the camera in the courtroom that's the problem. The issue here is the public's right... This is a public hearing. The court's ruled that it's a public hearing. Kearns- Tribune recognizes that preliminary hearings are public, and the public that is here in this courtroom should be able to see the exhibits that are admitted and that the court is going to rely on. And that is even more important to the victim representative's right to be able to be present and to observe these proceedings. Thank you.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:11:55):

All right. Counsel?

Speaker 2 (01:12:04):

Your Honor, if I may, I'll be brief. I want to begin by saying thank you to both the parties, to the state, to the defense, to the court. The time that's being taken today and the nimbleness that's required to talk about things like a transcript in open court is a challenge. I recognize that it presents difficulties and that it takes time. And I want to begin by thanking both the parties and the court for taking the time to do that. It's important to the public and I appreciate the court doing that. I know the public does as well. The only thing that I want to say with respect to this question about admissions or confessions is something that I hope will help the court. The court is looking at Rideau. It's looking at Estes. These cases from 50 or 60 years ago in a different media environment under the United States Supreme Court.

(01:12:54)
I want to urge the court to do what the court has done before and that's to look at Allgier. This is a 2011 Utah Supreme Court case. It's obviously in the wake of Rideau. It's obviously in the wake of Estes. It's here in this state, unanimous Utah Supreme Court upholding a decision made by Judge McCleve below in a case that has striking parallels to this one. In the Allgier case, there was a murder trial, and the court received a letter, a notarized letter from an inmate saying, "The defendant in this case has confessed to me, told me that he was involved in the shooting, gave me details of it, threatened me and my family if I did that. I want the court to know that." That was provisionally sealed for many of the same reasons that the court could conceivably consider keeping some of this information from the public.

(01:13:43)
The court did a two-step analysis. It began by trying to determine whether or not there was a presumptive right of access to that document. The answer is yes. There is a presumptive right of access to this proceeding as well. Like Mr. Ballard just said, because this is a preliminary hearing, there's a presumptive right of access for the public. The second question was simply whether there's some kind of balancing that should be done. Notably in paragraph 17 of that Allgier case, it stressed something that we have said over and over again, which is much of the information that would be revealed through that letter had already become public at that point. And the idea of sealing a document that contained allegations or details that were already in the public sphere would only create the impression that information was being kept from the public when it was not.

(01:14:24)
We stressed what we did yesterday. As we understand it, much of the information that is now under consideration for the court is already in the public sphere. The right case to analyze this under is Allgier. Allgier would dictate in this case that the court recognized there's a presumptive right of access to this material, and that the balancing test that would be needed to overcome that presumption of access has not been satisfied here particularly because so much of that information is already in the public sphere. That must be an animating factor here and we ask the court for that reason to grant access, both publication to the courtroom, and in our view, publication on the cameras as well. But we again do recognize that that middle step is a meaningful one. And if the court were to decide that that information be shared in the courtroom but not on the general feed, we would recognize that as well as a meaningful step towards transparency in this case.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:15:22):

Counsel?

Jeffrey Neiman (01:15:25):

Good morning, Your Honor. Jeffrey Neiman on behalf of the Kirk family. And we appreciate the court is trying to balance here, but the Kirk family has waited 10 months for this hearing. And they have a right to be here and they have a right to hear the evidence. They have a right to see and feel what's going on in this courtroom. And they want to understand, Judge, what you are viewing. They want to see the evidence. And we understand you have to balance, but at a minimum, this courtroom needs to be open for the evidence to be displayed openly in this courtroom for them to see it. The Utah Constitution gives them the right to be here, and to be here and not to see the evidence, what's the point of being here? We ask you to let the evidence be seen in the courtroom, please. Thank you for your time.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:16:15):

Thank you, counsel. Anything further as it relates to exhibits 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 as it relates to what's been briefed or any other arguments? I just want to make sure it has all been received before the court issues its ruling.

Richard Novak (01:16:36):

No, thank you.

Christopher Ballard (01:16:37):

Not from the state, Your Honor. Thank you.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:16:41):

All right. And just to be clear, as it relates to the state's request, well, so under the three factors or the three levels, admission to the court, publication to the gallery, and then publication beyond the gallery, what is the request for each of these exhibits?

Christopher Ballard (01:17:20):

Your Honor, we are asking for admission. We are asking for publication within the courtroom, but not publication electronically to the electronic coverage in the courtroom of these proceedings. We do want to make clear that once the exhibit is admitted, that the witness will be reading from portions of the exhibit. But again, we're not asking that that be displayed in any way so that those outside the courtroom could capture that and reproduce it.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:18:04):

Thank you. The court just wants to... And just for clarification, 16.1 is the text messages, 16.2 is Discord chats, and 16.3 is photograph of notes.

Christopher Ballard (01:18:22):

That's correct, Your Honor.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:18:23):

All right. And finally, and this hasn't really been addressed by any party, but it is a factor the court's weighing. How much of 16.1 has been published to the public prior to these proceedings? And this is open to all if you wish to weigh in. I just want to make sure that that's clear because that wasn't really addressed in the briefing and it's a factor. So I want to make sure that that issue has been presented by the parties if you choose to.

Christopher Ballard (01:19:37):

Your Honor, with respect to Exhibit 16.1, some of those text messages do appear on pages eight and nine. Pages eight and nine of the information that is public.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:19:50):

Could you give me a rough estimate or percentage of how much of the total amount of 16.1 appears not in the information? Again, I'm just trying to create a record of what is out there from your perspective so the court can consider that in its analysis.

Christopher Ballard (01:23:43):

Your Honor, State's Exhibit 16.1 is 18 pages total of photographs of text messages. It's approximately five and a half pages of those 18 pages that are reproduced in the information. Thank you for your patience.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:23:59):

Thank you, Mr. Ballard. I appreciate you doing that on the fly. Anything further from any party? To defense?

Richard Novak (01:24:15):

No, thank you.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:24:16):

To the prosecution?

Christopher Ballard (01:24:18):

No, your Honor. Thank you.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:24:19):

Media?

Speaker 2 (01:24:26):

Only just point out for the court that in addition to the text messages, I believe, I haven't seen the other exhibits, but I believe that at least the note itself, which is another one of the exhibits, is also described in the information.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:24:38):

Thank you. Ms. Kirk's victim representative attorney.

Jeffrey Neiman (01:24:57):

This has not been easy, as you can imagine. And I think the family deserves to see the evidence that's been gathered in this investigation. They deserve to know what happened to Charlie. So we urge the court to please again display the evidence here in the courtroom.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:25:19):

Thank you. Thank you to all parties. I appreciate the diligence and hard work that you've put in briefing argument. These are important exhibits as it relates to what should be considered for, again, to be clear, these exhibits are being admitted to the court in its entirety. The question before the court is publication within the courtroom and beyond the courtroom. And so this is the ruling as it relates to the briefing. And I know it wasn't a formal motion, but I'm just trying to be thorough in my approach. This matter comes before the court on state's request to publish exhibit 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 during the preliminary hearing and defendant's objection to that request. The exhibits consist of text messages between Mr. Robinson and a witness, Discord messages between Mr. Robinson and others, and a written note the state attributes to Mr. Robinson.

(01:26:27)
Attorneys for Mr. Robinson argue the publication of the exhibits during the proceedings, subject to electronic media coverage, would create a substantial risk of prejudice and impair his rights to due process under the 14th Amendment. Defendant relies on Rideau versus Louisiana, Estes, and Skilling and asks the court to consider any admissible exhibit for the purposes of the preliminary hearing while limiting their public display or broadcast. The state responds that Rideau and Estes do not require a categorical restriction here. The state argues that the exhibits are materially different from the televised custodial interrogation at issue in Rideau, because they are written communications allegedly made outside law enforcement custody. The state also argues that the potential prejudice can be addressed through trial management measures, including voir dire, and that the victim representative has an interest in being present for, and able to follow, important criminal proceedings.

(01:27:28)
The court has considered the parties' arguments, the nature of the exhibits, and the procedural posture of this preliminary hearing, the defendant's due process interest, the public nature of the criminal proceedings, and the interests asserted by the state and victim representative. On the present record, the court is not persuaded that the publication of exhibit 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 during the preliminary hearing creates the type of inherent or presumed prejudice that requires categorical restrictions under Rideau, Estes, and Skilling. Unlike the broadcast interrogation in Rideau, the exhibits at issue are written communications allegedly made outside police custody and are being offered in the ordinary course of a judicial proceeding. That distinction does not eliminate the possibility of prejudice, but it weighs against treating publication of the exhibits as presumptively unconstitutional. The court further finds that any potential prejudice arising from media coverage may be addressed if necessary through the appropriate trial procedures including voir dire and any other measures warranted before trial.

(01:28:39)
This ruling is limited to publication of the exhibits during the preliminary hearing and does not determine their admissibility at trial. And, I insert, if one occurs, or foreclose any later request for relief based on a more developed record. Accordingly, the defendant's objection is overruled. As it relates to this preliminary hearing, the state may publish Exhibits 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3. And the court is authorizing, with the exception of the third-to-last page on Exhibit 16.1, because it contains information including a phone number and address, to be redacted before publication in the courtroom. But as it relates to 16.1, because it was publicly distributed by the state, that 16.1 in its entirety may be broadcast through electronic media. That is the ruling of the court. Counsel, how would we like to proceed?

Christopher Ballard (01:29:54):

Your Honor, just to clarify the record, the state has redacted that portion. We anticipated that that needed to be redacted in 16.1. So we have redacted that portion. We believe that the best way to proceed now is we have the edited video ready that comports with the additional edits that the court has ordered. We propose that we take a break so that we can show that to the defense, make sure we're on the same page, and then we anticipate coming back and playing Exhibit 16.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (01:30:28):

All right. Okay. All right. I appreciate the caution being exercised by all parties. We'll take a 15 minute break. Come back at 10:50. Court is in a brief recess.

Speaker 3 (01:30:39):

All rise-

Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. (01:47:55):

We'll wait a moment for the public to be able to come back into the courtroom.

(01:47:59)
Now back in session. Welcome back. Turning to the state.

Ms. Hunt (01:52:08):

I apologize, Judge. We were having computer technology issues and we believe those have been sorted out, but we have not yet had the opportunity to show that the final edited versions to the defense.

Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. (01:52:19):

All right. Well, how much time do you need?

Ms. Hunt (01:52:22):

Just as long as it takes to show the video. So maybe 10 minutes.

Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. (01:52:29):

All right. Well, we'll go into ... Well, I want to make sure sufficient time is done to do that. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that we were at this point. We'll be in recess for 10 more minutes. So by 11:05 approximately.

Ms. Hunt (01:52:55):

That should work. And also we can inform the bailiff as soon as we're done if it's ahead of that time.

Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. (01:53:00):

All right. So ladies and gentlemen, I apologize. I thought we're ready to proceed. I want to be respectful of everyone's time, but all at the same time keep this hearing moving forward. So court is in a brief recess.

Speaker 4 (01:53:12):

All rise.

Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. (02:08:54):

The court is back in session. Noting the presence of the parties, all being present. And where we left off is, the state was looking to confer with defense to ensure that State's Exhibits 16, 16.1, 16.2 and 16.3 were shared. Ms. Hunt.

Ms. Hunt (02:09:18):

We have reviewed Exhibit 16 with defense and it comports with the court's order. At this point, we would like to put Agent Davis back on the stand and continue with displaying that, publishing that.

Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. (02:09:33):

All right. Agent Davis, if you'd like to come forward, I remind you, you're still under oath. If you'd like to have a seat, there should be a water bottle to your left. And after you're situated, if you wouldn't mind adjusting that microphone and bringing it close to you so the record can pick up your testimony.

(02:09:51)
Ms. Hunt, your witness.

Ms. Hunt (02:09:53):

And just for the record and the court's benefit, we have made the edits that the court has ordered. We have shown them to defense. Pursuant to the timestamps that the court ordered, wanted those to be reflected very clearly so there are sometimes large gaps of just black, empty, silent space. When there are large gaps, we will fast forward. Some of those are short enough that we'll just let it play if the court is okay with that, with proceeding that way.

Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. (02:10:23):

Thank you. I appreciate giving a heads up so all parties know what's going on. Thank you, Ms. Hunt.

Ms. Hunt (02:10:29):

So at this time, we would move to publish on the monitors State's Exhibit 16.

Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. (02:10:37):

All right. And to the media there is a monitor for your benefit right there next to you. For the camera, there is one for that direction as well as for the gallery.

Video (02:11:04):

Speaker 4: This meeting is to use your statement here instead of your testimony at a preliminary hearing. You understand that?

(02:11:12)
Lance Twiggs: Mm-hmm.

(02:11:13)
Speaker 4: Okay. So in order to do that, I need to place you under oath and also give you an admonition about false statements. Okay? First, you do solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you shall give in this issue shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?

(02:11:32)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:11:33)
Speaker 4: I also need to notify you that you are notified the statements you are about to make may be presented to a magistrate or a judge in lieu of your sworn testimony at a preliminary examination. Any false statement you make and that you do not believe to be true may subject you to criminal punishment as a class A misdemeanor. Do you understand that?

(02:11:56)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:11:56)
Speaker 4: It potentially could be used for punishment as a high offense as obstruction of justice. In addition, I just want to make sure that our recording here is clear that you've also been given a federal agreement and a state agreement granting you immunity from prosecution for materials that you discuss now. Do you understand that?

(02:12:22)
Lance Twiggs: Mm-hmm.

(02:12:22)
Speaker 4: Okay. First, we're going to cover some of the things that you've already talked about, but to make it as part of this record, first, what's your name?

(02:12:34)
Lance Twiggs: Full name with middle name or just first and last?

(02:12:37)
Speaker 4: First and last is fine.

(02:12:39)
Lance Twiggs: Okay. My name is Lance Twiggs.

(02:12:40)
Speaker 4: And do you know Tyler Robinson?

(02:12:42)
Lance Twiggs: Yes, I do. Yeah, I do.

(02:12:42)
Speaker 4: And this is the same Tyler Robinson that's been charged with the shooting of Charlie Kirk?

(02:12:50)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:12:50)
Speaker 4: And would you say when you first met Tyler?

(02:12:55)
Lance Twiggs: I think it was 2023. I've known him longer than that though. That was I think the first time I met him in person.

(02:13:04)
Speaker 4: Okay. And will you describe your relationship with Tyler, when you first met him anyway.

(02:13:13)
Lance Twiggs: When I first met him, I didn't know him super well. He was just a new roommate. So I knew he knew my friend group and I knew he liked playing games, but that's about it when he first moved in.

(02:13:32)
Speaker 4: Okay. Before we go on, I realized my mic was muted at the onset. Was yours going? Your microphone?

(02:13:37)
Speaker 6: It's going.

(02:13:37)
Speaker 4: I'm going to repeat those admonitions to make sure we've got recording. So again, I placed you under oath. Just to make a record, I'm going to do it again. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in this issue shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help God.

(02:13:56)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:13:56)
Speaker 4: And again, I'm going to give you the false statement admonition.

(02:14:02)
Speaker 6: Sorry, hold on. They're saying that it's echoing so I can-

(02:14:09)
Lance Twiggs: I think this one's mic is on.

(02:14:09)
Speaker 6: Okay. Sorry.

(02:14:09)
Speaker 4: Okay. You're not. Only my mic, but that's fine.

(02:14:09)
Speaker 6: Okay.

(02:14:09)
Speaker 4: So we should be good. All right. Is that mic on?

(02:14:26)
Speaker 6: Yes.

(02:14:26)
Speaker 4: Okay, great.

(02:14:26)
Speaker 6: Sorry.

(02:14:26)
Speaker 4: All right. Okay. Sorry about that interruption. All right. So you said when you first met, you were roommates?

(02:14:36)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah.

(02:14:36)
Speaker 4: Okay. And then at some point your relationship progressed to something more than just roommates, is that right?

(02:14:44)
Lance Twiggs: Mm-hmm.

(02:14:44)
Speaker 4: When was that?

(02:14:44)
Lance Twiggs: I think we started dating two or three months after he moved in.

(02:14:48)
Speaker 4: Okay. And where did you live at that time?

(02:14:52)
Lance Twiggs: St. George in an apartment complex.

(02:14:55)
Speaker 4: And is that apartment the same place you lived on September 10th?

(02:15:00)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:15:01)
Speaker 4: When you lived there with Tyler, were you in the same room? Did you live in the same room or different rooms?

(02:15:10)
Lance Twiggs: No. Separate rooms.

(02:15:11)
Speaker 4: And at that time, let's say September of 2025, what were you doing with your life? Were you working, school?

(02:15:21)
Lance Twiggs: I was working. I was doing bathtub and shower repair and stuff and new construction. Speaker 4: Okay. How about Tyler?

(02:15:31)
Lance Twiggs: I think he was both working. I think he was working for an electrician company then, and he was also in a trade school for being a, I don't know, higher ranking electrician. I'm not sure how the trade system works for that.

(02:15:47)
Speaker 4: Okay.

(02:15:47)
Lance Twiggs: But yeah, I think he was both.

(02:15:54)
Speaker 4: What was his typical work day like?

(02:15:54)
Lance Twiggs: I think he'd leave around 7:00 generally and get back around 3:00 to 4: 00, depending on where the job was and how long it-

Video (02:16:00):

Lance Twiggs: Depending on where the job was and how long it was for the day. And then on certain days of the week during school semesters, he would then later in the day, I think around 5:00 or 6:00, go to school. So, yeah.

(02:16:18)
Speaker 2: Okay. Let's jump to September 10th. Did he spend the night in the apartment the night of September 9th into September 10th?

(02:16:27)
Lance Twiggs: Into September 10th. Yeah, he did. Yes.

(02:16:32)
Speaker 2: Do you know when he left the apartment on September 10th?

(02:16:34)
Lance Twiggs: I don't know an exact time. I just know he left early. I heard him leaving and he just said he had a long drive to work that day, so he was leaving early.

(02:16:45)
Speaker 2: Okay, so early. Any guess as to when that was?

(02:16:53)
Lance Twiggs: I don't know. I would've thought it was 5:00 AM because that's when an early work day was for him, but it was probably more like 4:00.

(02:17:02)
Speaker 2: Okay.

(02:17:04)
Speaker 3: Um, I'm gonna have him spit out his gum just to make sure that-

(02:17:08)
Lance Twiggs: I can do that.

(02:17:08)
Speaker 3: [inaudible 02:17:09]. This is right in front of your laptop.

(02:17:10)
Speaker 2: Oh, here you go.

(02:17:20)
Lance Twiggs: Thank you.

(02:17:21)
Speaker 4: [inaudible 02:17:21].

(02:17:21)
Lance Twiggs: Thank you.

(02:17:21)
Speaker 2: All right. So what time did you get up on September 10th?

(02:17:29)
Lance Twiggs: Probably 12:00 to 1:00 PM.

(02:17:34)
Speaker 2: You didn't have to work that day?

(02:17:36)
Lance Twiggs: No.

(02:17:36)
Speaker 2: And did you hear from Tyler? Did he call or text you before then?

(02:17:42)
Lance Twiggs: No, he sent that message in the group chat I mentioned, but he didn't message me directly at all that day.

(02:17:48)
Speaker 2: Okay. When did you first hear from him on September 10th?

(02:17:54)
Lance Twiggs: It was at 11:00 with that automated message.

(02:17:56)
Speaker 2: Okay. 11:00 PM? Lance Twiggs: Yeah.

(02:18:28)
Speaker 2: He asks you here, "Remember how I was engraving bullets?" Was he engraving bullets before this?

(02:18:32)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah. I don't remember exactly when, but he had said he was planning to go hunting with his family. And he asked me if we had a Dremel, because he said he wanted to engrave messages on bullets. And I just told him where Dremel was and I told him to make sure he doesn't set off a bullet on accident in the house, but I didn't really think about it until then.

(02:18:59)
Speaker 2: How long before September 10th was this that he asked about the Dremel?

(02:19:06)
Lance Twiggs: I don't remember, because he'd been talking about the hunting/camping trip for a couple months, but I don't remember when he was specifically asking to engrave the bullets.

(02:19:21)
Speaker 2: Are we talking a year before?

(02:19:24)
Lance Twiggs: Oh, no, not that long. It would've been, I'd say at most a month before this was when he was asking.

(02:19:30)
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. You talked about the note that he left. I want to bring this up and I should say that these text messages that we've been looking at here are Bates number 54. Okay. The notes have been titled 16.3 with a note and this is Bates number 58. Do you recognize that on the screen there?

(02:20:16)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah. Yeah.

(02:20:17)
Speaker 2: What do you recognize it as?

(02:20:20)
Lance Twiggs: That was the note under his keyboard that he was referring to in the first text of that chain.

(02:20:26)
Speaker 2: Okay. So where did you find this? Lance Twiggs: On his desk underneath his computer keyboard.

(02:20:44)
Speaker 2: I assume you read it?

(02:20:45)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah.

(02:20:45)
Speaker 2: And then what did you do with it after you read it?

(02:20:50)
Lance Twiggs: I believe I just put it back down on the desk after I took a picture of it.

(02:20:54)
Speaker 2: Okay. And again, the time you read it was probably around 11:00 or so on the 10th?

(02:21:00)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:21:00)
Speaker 2: The night of September 10th?

(02:21:06)
Lance Twiggs: Mm-hmm.

(02:21:07)
Speaker 2: All right. And did you ever see that again after you placed it back on his desk?

(02:21:09)
Lance Twiggs: No, I don't think I did.

(02:21:09)
Speaker 2: And that was a desk in his bedroom?

(02:21:16)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:21:16)
Speaker 2: And that's a separate bedroom than your bedroom?

(02:21:18)
Lance Twiggs: Yep.

(02:21:18)
Speaker 2: Okay. And now, I want to go to what's been titled 16.2. And do you recognize this series of messages here?

(02:21:32)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah, that was the server, like his friend that I was mentioning.

(02:21:44)
Speaker 2: Okay. And this is your phone again?

(02:21:47)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah.

(02:21:48)
Speaker 2: And I'm assuming you recognize it because the big crack up at the top.

(02:21:55)
Lance Twiggs: Mm-hmm.

(02:21:55)
Speaker 2: And so this is a server. Is this Discord?

(02:21:58)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah, this is Discord.

(02:22:00)
Speaker 2: And who are members of this server? I don't want names, just generally. Who are these people and members of this group?

(02:22:05)
Lance Twiggs: This is his friend group. They played D&D together every week.

(02:22:09)
Speaker 2: Okay. And I just want to scroll through this to make sure that you get a chance to take a look at it or go to the next page.

(02:22:20)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:22:21)
Speaker 2: So Tyler Icum, who's that?

(02:22:21)
Lance Twiggs: That's Tyler Robinson.

(02:22:35)
Speaker 2: And these other people are just others that are members of the server?

(02:22:40)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:22:40)
Speaker 2: Judd, Barnaby, Marina, DM. Yes?

(02:22:44)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah. DM means Dungeon Master. So most of them are names they're using in the game they're playing currently.

(02:22:52)
Speaker 2: Got it. Yeah. It looks like the last text from Tyler, it looks like it's 8:00 PM. And do you know what day this would've been? 8:00 PM on the 10th, or the 11th?

(02:23:13)
Lance Twiggs: I would think that would be the 11th. At least I think so, because I don't think on the 10th that he messaged anyone before me at 11th.

(02:23:29)
Speaker 2: And he turned himself in on the 11th, right?

(02:23:32)
Lance Twiggs: I thought so, yeah.

(02:23:33)
Speaker 2: Okay. Again, we're just going to go through this so that we have a record of the messages. Is that an accurate recording of that thread?

(02:24:03)
Lance Twiggs: To my knowledge, yes.

(02:24:03)
Speaker 2: And that was sent, it looks like between September 10th and September 12th. Looks like the last day on this is September 12th screen?

(02:24:16)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:24:16)
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. So again, those messages covered from September 10th to the evening of September 11th. Now September 11th, what time did ... Or did you see Tyler on September 11th?

(02:24:54)
Lance Twiggs: Yes.

(02:24:55)
Speaker 2: When did you first see him on September 11th? So this is the day after the shooting.

(02:24:58)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah, I saw him when I woke up. Like I said, he was up and around doing a lot of stuff around the house. And then I think I saw him after that message where I said I'll come home and say I'm doing laundry because I didn't want him going to my parents' house right then when he said there was probably cops outside. So I went back home and it was just him there and I said bye to him and then he drove off, so I just went back to my parents' house.

(02:25:32)
Speaker 2: So he acted erratically. Was he pacing? Was he just sitting down, relaxing?

(02:26:07)
Lance Twiggs: No, he was walking around a lot.

(02:26:09)
Speaker 2: And that's within the home?

(02:26:10)
Lance Twiggs: Mm-hmm.

(02:26:11)
Speaker 2: And did he talk about what he had done?

(02:26:16)
Lance Twiggs: Didn't go into detail. I just asked him in person if what he said was true the night before and he said it was. He started crying a little bit and said he wishes he hadn't done it and then kept going around and just doing stuff I think to keep himself busy or distracted or something.

(02:26:40)
Speaker 2: Okay. Did he talk about what he was going to do next?

(02:26:44)
Lance Twiggs: And then eventually said that he would talk to his parents or turn himself over.

(02:26:57)
Speaker 2: Okay. And when you left, was that how you left understanding that he was going to turn himself in or go to his parents' house?

(02:27:06)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah. And I didn't really want to be at our apartment while any of that was happening, regardless of what went down.

(02:27:13)
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. Before he came home, had you seen the press releases, any of the media on this?

(02:27:28)
Lance Twiggs: I'd seen one Instagram link a friend of mine had sent in our group chat, but I hadn't really looked into it at all.

(02:27:39)
Speaker 2: And had you seen the images that were released of the suspect?

(02:27:44)
Lance Twiggs: I did the next day. I don't think I saw any on the 10th.

(02:27:48)
Speaker 2: I'm going to show you a couple of those images. Okay, I'm on the FBI's website. You can see the URL there at the top. This is a press release about this event. And here on the screen, you see these, looks like there's two rows of three images. Do you recognize the person in these images?

(02:28:23)
Lance Twiggs: I wouldn't say with 100% certainty just because of camera quality, but that looks like him in terms of the shoes he's wearing, the sunglasses. I don't think I'd specifically seen him wearing that hat, but he was usually wearing a hat and then jeans. So it definitely, especially the bottom, the last two definitely do look like him.

(02:28:47)
Speaker 2: Who's he?

(02:28:52)
Lance Twiggs: They do look like Tyler Robinson.

(02:28:55)
Speaker 2: And you talked about that with your friends, right? This is really him?

(02:29:01)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah, his friends. Yeah. I don't remember if I talked about it with any of my friends. And then since I didn't have my phone after that for a while and I still am not using social media, I don't know on my friend's end.

(02:29:18)
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. I want to back up a little bit now. We've talked about September 10th, but let me get a little bit of context here. So did you game with Tyler?

(02:29:31)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah.

(02:29:31)
Speaker 2: What kind of games?

(02:29:37)
Lance Twiggs: We played some just kind of party games together, anything that would be multiplayer with a group of friends. There was one game he really liked called Sea of Thieves where he plays a pirate and you can fight against people, but most of it's just fishing, fighting sharks, skeletons kind of stuff.

(02:29:57)
We played some co-op games where it's like you both have to work together to win in whatever way. Way back when, when I was just out of high school, when I first knew him online, we played some shooting games together, but I didn't know him very well. So that was just when we had a full friend group on to play and he was someone that my friends invited.

(02:30:19)
Speaker 2: Okay. Did you and he ever talk about politics?

(02:30:23)
Lance Twiggs: He did more than me. I still don't really keep up with politics very much. He'd usually talk about stuff he heard on the radio on his drive to work in their work car since it sounds like their whole crew went in the same car most of the time, but I wouldn't say super consistently because it wasn't a topic I really contributed much on.

(02:30:51)
Speaker 2: How about Charlie Kirk? Did he ever talk about Charlie Kirk?

(02:30:54)
Lance Twiggs: I personally had never heard him talk about Charlie Kirk before specifically.

(02:30:59)
Speaker 2: Okay. How about political issues? So did you ever talk about gender identity issues and LGBTQ rights?

(02:31:12)
Lance Twiggs: No, not really. Usually, if he did talk about politics stuff, it was relating to Trump or current policies being issued or voted on, I think, but yeah.

(02:31:29)
Speaker 2: Okay. So before that you have been?

(02:31:54)
Lance Twiggs: Mm-hmm. For a short time, yes.

(02:31:56)
Speaker 2: Okay. And I understand you were going by Luna at some point?

(02:32:01)
Lance Twiggs: To some people, yeah, but not as an overall thing. Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. I think that's all the questions I have for this portion. Let me check and see if I've missed anything.

(02:32:43)
Okay. The Dremel that you talked about, you said he had asked for that, is that right?

(02:33:09)
Lance Twiggs: Mm-hmm.

(02:33:09)
Speaker 2: And had he told you it was to inscribe bullets?

(02:33:11)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah.

(02:33:11)
Speaker 2: And so did you have a Dremel then?

(02:33:15)
Lance Twiggs: Yeah. Okay. Our apartment, we had a section where we kept all our random tools for household stuff in our lower basement level pantry, so yeah.

(02:33:29)
Speaker 2: Okay. And did you give that to him, or tell him where it was?

(02:33:31)
Lance Twiggs: I just told him where it was. Yeah.

(02:33:34)
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm going to go ahead and end the recording for the 11:02 purposes.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (02:33:59):

All right. That concludes state's exhibit 16. Ms. Hunt?

Ms. Hunt (02:34:03):

Thank you, Judge. Agent Davis, I asked you yesterday, but I want to remind the court and those present, were you physically present at the interview we just watched in state's Exhibit 16?

Agent Davis (02:34:16):

Yes, I was there.

Ms. Hunt (02:34:21):

And aside from the court-ordered redactions, did it appear to you to be fair and accurate about what you remember that interview that day?

Agent Davis (02:34:32):

Yes. Yes, I do.

Ms. Hunt (02:34:35):

During that interview, did Mr. Twiggs, was he shown or referenced certain items of evidence?

Agent Davis (02:34:42):

Yes, he was.

Ms. Hunt (02:34:43):

What types of items of evidence was he shown?

Agent Davis (02:34:47):

It was the text messages between himself and Tyler Robinson, a Discord chat messages and a handwritten note.

Ms. Hunt (02:34:59):

And then we also saw in the video he was also shown the FBI press release photos of the potential suspect?

Agent Davis (02:35:06):

That's correct, yes.

Ms. Hunt (02:35:08):

Have you reviewed all of those items as part of the investigation?

Agent Davis (02:35:11):

Yes, I have.

Ms. Hunt (02:35:12):

You're familiar with them?

Agent Davis (02:35:13):

Yes.

Ms. Hunt (02:35:14):

All right. I want to put just on the witness's screen what's been marked for identification as state's Exhibit 16.1. And for the record, this includes the one edit that the court has previously ordered.

Judge Tony F Graf Jr (02:35:29):

Thank you.

Ms. Hunt (02:35:30):

Let me know when you see that on your screen.

Agent Davis (02:35:54):

I see it. I see it now.

Ms. Hunt (02:35:57):

Do you recognize this?

Agent Davis (02:35:59):

Yes, I do.

Ms. Hunt (02:36:00):

What is it?

Agent Davis (02:36:01):

This is a photograph of screenshots of text messages between Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs. This is a photograph of Lance's phone.

Ms. Hunt (02:36:15):

So sorry, you said photograph, you also said screenshot. Can you differentiate or clarify there?

Agent Davis (02:36:21):

Yeah. Sorry. Yeah, these are photographs directly from Lance's phone.

Ms. Hunt (02:36:26):

How do you know that?

Agent Davis (02:36:28):

In Lance's first interview, he's showing the FBI agents these text messages, describes them to the agents. And at that time, his phone was photographed.

Ms. Hunt (02:36:46):

And you testified, I believe yesterday that Mr. Twiggs' first interview was the morning of September 12th, 2025. Is that correct?

Agent Davis (02:36:55):

That's correct, yes.

Ms. Hunt (02:36:56):

Were you physically present at that interview?

Agent Davis (02:36:59):

No, I was not there.

Ms. Hunt (02:37:00):

Have you spoken with the officers or agents that were?

Agent Davis (02:37:05):

Yes, I've spoken to one of those agents that was there.

Ms. Hunt (02:37:13):

And you stated that, that first September 12th interview of Mr. Twiggs was recorded?

Agent Davis (02:37:18):

Yes. Audio/video recorded.

Ms. Hunt (02:37:19):

Have you reviewed that recording?

Agent Davis (02:37:21):

Yes, I have.

Ms. Hunt (02:37:23):

So you stated that we're looking in state's Exhibit 16.1 at a picture of Mr. Twiggs' phone.

Agent Davis (02:37:30):

Yes.

Ms. Hunt (02:37:31):

Do you know who took these photos?

Agent Davis (02:37:34):

Yes, it was Agent Larson with FBI.

Ms. Hunt (02:37:36):

Did you speak with Agent Larson and confirm that?

Agent Davis (02:37:38):

I did.

Ms. Hunt (02:37:42):

And you kind of made reference to this already, but how did Mr. Twiggs initially show law enforcement the relevant text messages?

Agent Davis (02:37:48):

Yeah, during that first interview on September 12th, physically, he shows them the phone and then allows them to photograph the phone.

Ms. Hunt (02:38:00):

And does he identify it as his phone in that interview?

Agent Davis (02:38:03):

Yes, he does.

Ms. Hunt (02:38:04):

Does he refer to any particular features of the phone that allows him to make that identification?

Agent Davis (02:38:12):

The second interview, he refers to the large crack in the upper left screen. So he identifies that from his second interview that was given on April 20th.

Ms. Hunt (02:38:23):

And according to your review of the recording of his first interview and in speaking with the agents that were there, did he have his personal phone with him at the time of the September 12th interview?

Agent Davis (02:38:36):

Yes, he did.

Ms. Hunt (02:38:40):

And was this same text thread that we're seeing in state's Exhibit 16.1 shown to him during his second interview in ... Sorry, let me get the date right. April 20th, 2026 at the Utah County Attorney's Office that we just observed part of in state's Exhibit 16?

Agent Davis (02:38:58):

Yes, it was shown to him.

Ms. Hunt (02:39:03):

Was he asked how Tyler Robinson is saved in his phone as a contact?

Agent Davis (02:39:08):

Yeah, just as Tyler.

Ms. Hunt (02:39:11):

Without saying it, obviously, did he identify Tyler Robinson's phone number?

Agent Davis (02:39:15):

Yes, he did.

Ms. Hunt (02:39:18):

Did you check the number that Mr. Twiggs gave as Tyler Robinson's phone number against law enforcement records?

Agent Davis (02:39:23):

Yes, I did.

Ms. Hunt (02:39:24):

And do they match?

Agent Davis (02:39:25):

Yes, they match.

Ms. Hunt (02:39:26):

‍