Up Next
Fox News Anchor Will Cain Breaks Down Day Three of Tyler Robinson's Preliminary Hearing With Legal Experts
6:42
Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Day 4: Roommate Lance Twiggs Reveals Robinson Confessed to Killing Charlie Kirk
3:41:34
Andrew Kolvet and Blake Neff Break Down the Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing and Defense Tactics
15:28
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Subscribe on YouTubeTyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Day 1: Officer Testimony on Charlie Kirk Shooting at Utah Valley University
The preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, accused of murdering Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, began with detailed testimony from law enforcement officers. UVU Officer Chris Bagley described hearing a rifle shot during Kirk's campus event, discovering a screwdriver on the Losee Center rooftop, and finding evidence of a sniper position in disturbed gravel. State Bureau of Investigation Agent David Hull testified about the extensive investigation, including surveillance video analysis tracking Robinson's four visits to campus that day. The hearing featured intense legal battles over admissibility of evidence, including videos, autopsy reports, and witness statements, with defense attorneys objecting to hearsay and publication of materials. Judge Tony Graf carefully weighed constitutional protections for crime victims against the defendant's right to a fair trial while navigating preliminary hearing rules that allow reliable hearsay under Utah law.
Opening Proceedings and Courtroom Protocol
Judge Tony Graf opened the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing by establishing strict courtroom protocols. He recognized the presence of Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk's widow, and emphasized that this hearing would invoke emotion from everyone present. The judge mandated that spectators remain quiet and civil, prohibiting any audible comments, head gestures, or clothing expressing support or opposition to anyone involved in the case. He instructed that anyone exiting the courtroom during proceedings would not be permitted to re-enter until recess, with an exception later made for victim representatives.
The court addressed security measures, including turning off microphones at counsel tables to minimize inadvertent capture of privileged communications. Judge Graf required attorneys to approach the lectern when speaking to ensure clear record-keeping. He confirmed the camera operator understood all requirements of the standing decorum order and would comply with restrictions on filming certain exhibits and individuals.
Evidence Publication Disputes
A central tension emerged over publishing evidence beyond the courtroom. The news media had filed a motion to use portable electronic devices during the hearing, which Judge Graf partially denied. He permitted media counsel to use devices as officers of the court but denied the request for media representatives to do so. Defense attorney Katherine Nester repeatedly objected to exhibits being filmed or shown publicly, citing concerns about Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial and protections under Utah Code of Judicial Administration rules for private court records.
Judge Graf established a three-tier system for exhibit objections: admission into evidence, publication in the courtroom, and publication via media capture. He ruled that unless defense specifically objected to all three levels, the court would presume no objection. For sensitive exhibits, including videos depicting the shooting, the judge carefully balanced the public's right to see evidence against Article 1, Section 28 of the Utah Constitution, which guarantees crime victims treatment with fairness, respect, and dignity.
Officer Chris Bagley's Testimony
The state called UVU Police Officer Chris Bagley as their first witness. Bagley, who had 26 years of law enforcement experience including SWAT and K9 work, testified he was working an overtime shift on September 10, 2025, to provide security for Charlie Kirk's campus event. He described being positioned on the south end of the Hall of Flags walkway above the courtyard amphitheater where approximately 3,000 people had gathered.
At 12:23 p.m., Bagley heard what he immediately recognized as a rifle shot. He testified that rifle shots produce a longer, more violent sound than pistol shots, describing it as a "crackle" rather than a "pop." He observed Charlie Kirk lean to the left under the tent, disappearing from view. The crowd immediately erupted in chaos, with people screaming and running in all directions. Bagley initially descended stairs toward the courtyard, jumping over panicked attendees, to assist what he believed was an active shooter situation.
Discovery of the Sniper Position
Within 30 seconds of the shooting, Bagley heard over radio that a suspect was in custody near Kirk's tent. However, as he surveyed the courtyard for injured persons, he noticed an empty pistol holster on the grass. Combined with his recognition that he had heard a rifle shot, not a pistol, Bagley looked eastward and saw the Losee Center building had a direct line of sight to the tent. At 12:44 p.m., he climbed the public stairway to the Losee Center rooftop.
On the southwest portion of the gravel rooftop, approximately 10-15 feet from the access point, Bagley discovered a red and black screwdriver. More significantly, he observed what appeared to be a disturbance in the gravel consistent with someone lying in a prone sniper position. He could make out impressions that appeared to be elbows, knees, and feet, all aligned toward the tent where Kirk had been seated. Bagley immediately secured the area with yellow crime scene tape and radioed for additional units, realizing they likely did not have the actual shooter in custody.
Surveillance Video Analysis
Bagley testified that he quickly reviewed UVU surveillance footage at the campus police department. The video showed an individual running to the edge of the Losi building rooftop, getting into a prone position, then standing up after the shooting and running northeast across the roof before dropping off the northeast corner of the building. The officer noted he saw what appeared to be a long object, possibly covered with a towel or blanket, in the individual's left hand.
Bagley then responded to the northeast side of the Losi building where he observed a deep shoe impression in the grass below where the individual had jumped down. He also noticed scuff marks on the cement rooftop edge. He secured this secondary scene with additional crime scene tape and posted uniformed officers to preserve the evidence. Throughout his response, Bagley wore an active body camera that captured approximately 27 minutes and 35 seconds of footage before the battery died while he was still on the rooftop.
Cross-Examination by Defense
Defense attorney Katherine Nester's cross-examination revealed several gaps in the security response. Bagley acknowledged that only six UVU officers were assigned to secure an event expecting thousands of attendees. There was no operational or tactical security plan, no magnetometers to screen for weapons, no drones monitoring the area, and no officers specifically assigned to secure the Losi building or its rooftop before the shooting.
Nester established that Bagley never wrote in his police report that he heard the shot come from the east. She questioned the handling of the empty holster found in the courtyard, which was never collected, fingerprinted, or further investigated. The cross-examination also revealed that the crime scenes were not secured until after Bagley arrived, and he could not confirm whether anyone else had been on the Losi rooftop between when the shooter jumped off and when he arrived to document the scene.
Bagley admitted he never saw an actual firearm in the surveillance footage, only a long covered object. He confirmed that no spent shell casings were found on the rooftop where the sniper position was located. The defense established that at the end of both September 10th and 11th, despite extensive investigation, no one had identified who the shooter was based solely on evidence collected at the scene that day.
Agent David Hull's Investigation
State Bureau of Investigation Agent David Hull, who served as lead case agent, testified about the massive response involving federal entities (FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshals), state agencies, and local police. Hull, with over 12 years of law enforcement experience and involvement in approximately 40 homicide investigations, described the initial chaos as authorities secured the sprawling campus and determined whether an active shooter remained at large.
Hull testified that agents were assigned specific roles: Sergeant Falmina coordinated with the state crime lab to process crime scenes, Sergeant Bricker worked with UVU's surveillance team to review footage, Sergeant Clark conducted an area canvas, and Sergeant El Schultz managed the information flow. The investigation's priority was identifying the shooter through extensive video analysis. Hull personally reviewed approximately 20 hours of UVU surveillance footage in the first day, with the team collectively reviewing hundreds of hours.
Victim Videos and Witness Statements
The state introduced multiple videos from attendees at Kirk's event. Amber Wright's cell phone video, collected by Agent Mortensson on October 11th, showed the crowd and amphitheater but not the actual shooting. Wright later provided a written statement on an 1102 form—a format that includes advisories that the statement will be used at preliminary hearing in lieu of live testimony and that false statements constitute a class A misdemeanor.
A video from a minor identified as Mr. Phillips depicted a closer view from near the front of the crowd and showed the moment Kirk was shot. Defense objected strenuously to this graphic video being admitted or published, arguing it would prejudice Robinson's right to a fair trial. Judge Graf admitted the video but declined to publish it in the courtroom or allow media filming, viewing it only on his private monitor to protect the dignity of crime victims.
Visual Impulse, the professional videography company contracted by Turning Point USA, provided footage captured from cameras positioned behind the stage looking out at the crowd. This video also showed Kirk engaging with the audience, throwing hats, and the moment he was shot. Director Terryl Farnsworth provided an 1102 statement authenticating the footage on May 6th, 2026. These graphic videos documented Kirk's fatal injury and immediate aftermath.
Surveillance Video Compilation Dispute
A major legal battle erupted over a compilation video (Exhibit 12.1) that the prosecution had created from raw UVU surveillance footage. The compilation purportedly showed Tyler Robinson visiting the UVU campus four separate times on September 10th and into the early morning of September 11th. However, the county attorney's office had edited the footage, adding zoom features, red circles to highlight individuals, and blurring certain faces.
Defense counsel Nester objected that these alterations made the video inadmissible because the person who made the edits had not provided an 1102 statement or testimony authenticating the changes. She argued the prosecution failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the altered exhibit and that it was impossible to determine what had been changed or when. The state countered that Agent Hull and UVU Director Curtis Olssen had both verified the edited video accurately reflected the original footage except for those specific alterations.
Judge Graf sustained the defense objection, ruling that exhibits with substantive alterations require authentication from the person who made those changes. He stated he needed to maintain thoroughness and could not admit the edited compilation without that missing link in the chain of custody. The prosecution indicated they would prepare an unaltered version of the surveillance footage to present the following day.
Ring Doorbell Evidence
Agent Hull testified about Ring doorbell footage collected from a residence at 680 West 925 South in Orem, in the neighborhood northeast of campus. The video, obtained from Mrs. Noble during the initial canvas, showed a vehicle consistent with the silver Dodge Challenger registered to Tyler Robinson parking across the street at 12:38 a.m. on September 11th—just minutes after the shooting occurred.
Hull testified the vehicle had distinctive wheels that stood out on video footage and made it identifiable across multiple surveillance sources. The Ring video sequence showed the vehicle arriving, an individual exiting and moving away from it past reflective panels on a dumpster, then returning to the vehicle, unlocking it, entering, and driving away. Hull and Agent Davis returned to collect an 1102 statement from Mrs. Noble on April 6th, having her verify the specific video files taken from her Nest doorbell system.
Medical Examiner's Report
The prosecution introduced the autopsy report for Charlie Kirk, conducted by Dr. Guajardo late on September 10th into September 11th. Agent Hull testified he and Agent Davis personally met with the medical examiner shortly after the autopsy to discuss findings in depth. The official report listed the manner of death as homicide and the immediate cause as a gunshot wound to the neck.
Defense objected to admitting the medical examiner's report through Agent Hull's testimony rather than through the medical examiner directly, arguing it was hearsay presented by someone not qualified as an expert. The prosecution cited Utah Rule of Evidence 1102(B)(5), which specifically allows medical and autopsy reports as reliable hearsay in preliminary examinations. Judge Graf admitted the report but declined to publish it in the courtroom or allow media filming, again citing protections for crime victims' dignity.
In-Court Identification
Near the end of the day, prosecutor David Sturgill asked Agent Hull whether the person he had seen in numerous hours of surveillance footage, driver's license photos, and DMV records was present in the courtroom. Defense attorney Nester objected that requesting an in-court identification was unduly suggestive and violated due process under the 14th Amendment, arguing it tainted any future identification procedures.
Judge Graf overruled the objection for purposes of the preliminary hearing only, finding that Agent Hull had testified extensively about reviewing surveillance video, driver's license records showing Robinson's photograph, and DMV records identifying his vehicle. Hull identified Robinson as sitting between Miss Nester and other counsel, wearing a gray suit jacket with a dark tie and light-colored shirt. The judge emphasized this identification applied only to the preliminary hearing and did not extend to any future proceedings.
Emotional Courtroom Atmosphere
NewsNation correspondent Brian Entin reported from inside the courtroom that Erika Kirk was crying before the hearing started and left during Officer Bagley's description of the shooting. Donald Trump Jr. sat in the front row with his wife in a show of support for the Kirk family. In stark contrast, Tyler Robinson was observed laughing with his attorney before the hearing began, creating a jarring emotional disconnect in the courtroom.
The judge's repeated emphasis on treating all persons with dignity and respect reflected the intense emotions surrounding the case. He carefully managed the publication of graphic evidence, often declining to show videos in the courtroom or allow media filming to protect the Kirk family from repeated exposure to images of Charlie's death. At the same time, he balanced this against the public's right to understand the evidence being presented and Robinson's right to a fair proceeding.
Legal Standards and Hearsay Rules
Throughout the hearing, defense counsel repeatedly objected to the admission of hearsay evidence through 1102 statements and reports rather than live witness testimony. The prosecution consistently cited Utah Rule of Evidence 1102(B)(8), which allows reliable hearsay in preliminary hearings when collected through written statements that include proper advisories and warnings about perjury.
Judge Graf repeatedly referenced Article 1, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution, which explicitly permits the use of reliable hearsay at preliminary examinations to determine probable cause. He emphasized that the preliminary hearing standard is probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that rules of evidence are more relaxed at this stage than they would be at trial. However, he still required proper authentication and foundation for exhibits, as demonstrated by his exclusion of the altered surveillance video compilation.
The defense objected to nearly every exhibit and statement on constitutional grounds, arguing that admitting hearsay without the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses violated Robinson's rights and would prejudice his ability to receive a fair trial. Nester also invoked Utah Code of Judicial Administration rules classifying certain records as private, including photographs and videos of crime victims, arguing they should not be published even if admitted as evidence.
Adjournment and Next Steps
As the first day concluded around 5:00 p.m., the prosecution indicated they would spend the evening preparing an unaltered version of the UVU surveillance video compilation to present the next morning. Judge Graf agreed to adjourn for the day rather than continuing with Agent Hull's testimony, as the video evidence remained central to the state's case and needed to be properly before the court.
The defense requested that Agent Hull be instructed not to discuss his testimony overnight since he remained under examination. The judge agreed, ordering Hull not to discuss his testimony with anyone, including the prosecution team, until he returned to the stand. This unusual instruction reflected the dual role Hull played as both a witness and the lead case agent coordinating the ongoing investigation and trial preparation.
The hearing will resume at 9:00 a.m. the following morning, with expectations that Agent Hull will return to the stand and the prosecution will introduce the unedited surveillance footage. Based on the extensive foundation already laid about Robinson's movements, vehicle, and presence on campus, this video evidence appears crucial to establishing probable cause that Robinson committed the murder. The preliminary hearing is expected to continue for the full week, with the exception of a half-day on Wednesday.
Video Transcript
Robinson. Good morning.
>> For the record, the court also
recognizes the presence of Miss Erica
Kirk. Miss Kirk, good morning.
First, with respect to courtroom
protocol, to maintain security and
decorum, any individual who exits the
court to maintain security and decorum,
any individual who exits the courtroom
during proceedings will not be permitted
to re-enter until the recess.
All council are expected to take
reasonable measures to safeguard
confidential communication.
Such measures may include the use of
screen protections on electronic devices
and care to avoid the inadvertent
capture of privileged or private
discussions by recording equipment or by
those present in the courtroom.
In addition, the microphones at your
tables have been turned off. Again, an
attempt to try to minimize the
possibility of any of the communications
being captured. I ask that if you are
speaking that you come to the lectum and
that microphone will be live and so
that's the best way that we can hear you
and it is captured on the record.
All right. Second, the court will
address the camera operator and the
court knows there is no still
photographer for today's proceedings
pursuant to the court's ruling from last
week. Uh to our camera operator, would
you please approach the lectum?
is uh what uh duties will you perform
today?
>> Uh shooting the proceeding according to
the the corum order.
>> All right. And have you had a chance to
fully review the court standing to
quorum order?
>> I have, sir.
>> All right. And you understand all the
requirements set forth in that order as
it applies to your activities today?
>> Yes, sir. Do you require additional time
to review the order or to adjust
equipment to ensure compliance?
>> No, sir.
>> Do you anticipate any difficulty
complying with today's or with the order
or with any of the court's instructions?
>> No, sir.
>> All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Wilson.
I appreciate you being here.
>> Next, turning to the amended motion to
allow the use of portable electronic
devices. uh filed by the news media and
their council. The court appreciates the
arguments presented in the motion and
recognizes the importance of the press
uh in the criminal justice system.
Having considered the motions before the
court, the request to permit
representatives of the news media to use
portable electronic devices during the
preliminary hearing is respectfully
denied. The request to permit council
for the news media to use portable
electronic devices during the
preliminary hearing is granted
as officers of the court. Council shall
be held to the same standards applicable
to the council for the parties and
comply with the court's standing decorum
order. I wish to turn to the matter
before us today, the upcoming
preliminary hearing. And the court is
mindful of the safety and well-being of
all parties, council, witnesses, court
staff, and members of the public who are
present. The court is also mindful of
the duty to protect and uphold the
constitutional rights of both Mr.
Robinson and Miss Kirk. To serve those
important interests, the court reminds
all persons who will be in attendance
that the portable electronic devices
will not be permitted in the courtroom
or on the fourth floor. In addition,
each person who is in attendance will be
afforded the dignity and respect due to
them. And pursuant to the standing
quorum order, all spectators shall be
quiet, civil, and orderly. Spectators
shall not engage in any distracting,
disruptive, provocative, disrespectful,
univil, 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. And the court recognizes that
this hearing uh may invoke emotion uh
from
all from different from everyone and and
and that the court understands the human
nature of that. But also it's important
that this uh courtroom is orderly. A
spectator shall not wear or display any
pins, buttons, signs, clothing, or photo
uh photographs expressing support for or
against any person related to this case
or the status of of this case as a
capital offense.
Turning to counsel.
Before we begin, I want to acknowledge
that over these past 10 months, I've had
a chance to observe each of you, and I
find that you are all competent,
prepared, and that you care deeply about
this case.
I ask you to continue to conduct
yourselves in accordance with the rules
governing professional conduct,
civility, and ethics. I al also ask that
you remain mindful of the constitutional
rights of all parties and in every
engagement that you treat each person
you engage with with the dignity and
respect they are inherently do as they
are human beings.
I want to turn also to uh objections the
format that I wish to follow if
objections are made.
When an objection is made, all parties
shall pause so that the objection may be
heard. Speaking objections are not
permitted. If any party believes that a
extended argument is necessary,
particularly on sensitive matters, that
party may request to approach the bench
and all parties will approach the bench.
Both sides will be afforded an
opportunity to be heard for or against
the objection after which I will issue a
ruling either sustaining or overruling
the objection. Once the ruling has been
made, direct or cross-examination may
resume. I anticipate that we will begin
each morning at 9:00 a.m. with the
exception of Wednesday. We will begin at
100 p.m. We will take a 15minute morning
break and a 15minute afternoon break. If
there is an situation that necessitates
a break, uh please approach the bench
and we can address that. We will recess
for lunch at noon for one hour each day
with the exception of Wednesday and
court will resume at 100 p.m. and
continue until 5:00 p.m. each day.
Does either party need the benefit of
the record?
>> No, your honor.
>> Thank you, Mr. Nester. No judge. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Fernander. Do either
party wish to invoke the exclusionary
rule?
>> Defense invoked, your honor.
>> All right. The defense has invoked the
exclusionary rule. I ask that all
witnesses, if present, be excused from
the courtroom and ask that each party
monitor the courtroom to ensure your
witnesses aren't present as I'm not
familiar with who they are. Of course,
uh, victim representative is excluded
from that rule, as is the case manager
pursuant to the rules.
>> Okay. and and and I anticipate that from
here on out that they're just going to
come to the lectum. So,
>> okay. So, uh just for the benefit of the
record, uh uh to the questions, uh yes
or no questions, um
well, the parties have entered their
appearances and they're all present and
uh neither party wanted the benefit of
the record. Miss Nester invoked the
exclusionary rule and uh Mr. Grunander,
if you'd like to approach the lectum as
as the microphones at the tables are not
activated.
Thank you, Judge. Yeah, we anticipated
that the defense would invoke the
exclusionary rule. Um uh we met with we
consulted with defense for just a couple
of minutes prior to the start of this
hearing. We essentially have two case
agents, your honor. Um David Hull and
Brian Davis, both from the state of
Utah. Um, the defense has consented that
both of them can be present. So, one is
seated at my table, uh, the front table.
This is Brian Davis, Agent Davis, and
Agent Hull is seated on the bench just,
um, on the other side of the bar. Um, he
will be present for this hearing as
well. Both of these agents will be
testifying as part of the hearing.
>> Thank you, Miss Nester. Uh, and your
microphone's dead if you want to come
forward. and and it sounds like you've
stipulated, but just for the benefit of
the record,
>> we have stipulated, your honor, for
purposes of this hearing only.
>> Thank you. All right. So, agents Davis
and Hall are permitted to remain in the
courtroom during the duration of the
preliminary hearing.
Any other business that we need to
address before we turn to the business
of witnesses?
>> Mr. Novak. Thank you, your honor.
Richard Novak for Mr. Robinson. Your
honor, the court had issued an order um
maybe it was early last week.
Um asking the parties to meet and confer
about the question of um whether
exhibits will be published
and we did. And we can either deal with
this as a general matter or we can deal
with it on an exhibit byexhibit basis.
But I just want to make sure that we
didn't lose track of that issue. Um the
court had earlier entered an order
granting in part the defense motion to
exclude
um techn I'm just going to say
technology in the courtroom because it's
a shorthand for video cameras and
photography and microphones because the
parties had earlier stipulated that none
of the exhibits would be available from
the preliminary hearing would be a
available for inspection or copying. I
understand that publishing the exhibits
in the courtroom may technically be
different than that, but whenever the
court is ready to deal with that issue,
we just want to make sure um that we do
so.
>> Thank you.
>> Before it's too late.
>> That is that's always the right time to
do it.
>> Okay. Thank you.
Turning to the state uh and defense,
do we anticipate this being a long
argument or is it something that we can
handle
that there are some stipulations that we
can address right now and then the
remainder we can address on an exhibit
byexhibit basis.
Mr. Gernander,
Judge, I don't know that we have any
stipulations, but with that said, um it
is correct. Mr. Novak's correct. We did
meet and and consult on this issue. Um I
wanted to give the court just a brief
road map, but part of that was exhibits
7, 8, and 9
that we propose introducing will be
graphic in nature. Um and those were the
exhibits I was referring to at the last
hearing where we would like to take a
short break before they were published
if they are published whether it uh be
by way of video and or audio.
Um,
judge, I don't see any TVs or monitors
here in the courtroom today with respect
to publishing something that would uh go
beyond council table and your honor's
bench. So, I don't know how much this is
of an issue this is going to be anyway,
at least with respect to pictures or
video.
>> Thank you. And that's that's a great
point. and the court's thought about
this issue in regards to publication of
exhibits. Obviously, the court will
entertain all motions before any uh but
after we're
considering it. Here's here's the two
points that I wish to address in regards
to the exhibits. Uh I there is benefit
to publication of certain exhibits but
uh I also do not and this is going to
the camera operator do not want them to
be uh displayed on TV. I I I believe it
is important that the parties know that
the exhibits are being viewed by the
judge in real time and in in in open
court. However, uh what I will do is
have the monitor placed against that
wall to reduce the possibility of it
being broadcast. And so, um on the
exhibits that the court grants to be
published in court and not going to Mr.
Novak's point, not to be given copies to
and the court is trying to be mindful
that if it's shown on TV, that's
essentially giving a copy to. And so the
court is taking Mr. Novak's uh point in
consideration. And so the anticipation
is uh and I know I'm catching staff a
little bit off guard is placing that
television right behind Jeff or Baiff to
minimize the accidental capture by the
camera. uh and in allowing it to be
displayed. I recognize that that is not
the ideal spot for viewing, but I am
also trying to balance uh the rights and
and important considerations that
defense has made. And again, this will
be on an exhibit byexhibit basis on what
is published or what is not. But the for
the for the exhibits that the court
rules uh can be published in open court,
that is going to be the location of the
monitor. Um and and
again the court spent a bit of time
weighing what should be done where the
monitor should be placed to uh
accomplish the purposes of publication
at the same time protecting uh
especially as it may relate to sensitive
material if the court deems that to be
publishable in the courtroom. any
questions that I can address from either
side uh or clarification needed or
thoughts that you wish to share?
>> No, I think I understand completely.
>> All right.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. And Mr. Gernander, as it
relates to that, um
are we anticipating the possibility of
that coming up very soon? uh in regards
to publishing potentially exhibits.
>> Um
not real soon, but but today certainly I
would anticipate judge. Um for the
course of information, we anticipate
presenting four witnesses. Um they're
all law enforcement witnesses. Officer
Chris Baggley, uh he's now with Spanish
Fork Police Department. He was with Utah
Valley University Police Department.
He'll be the first witness.
The second witness will be agent David
Hull and those exhibits 789 we
anticipate coming in through him.
The third witness will be agent Brian
Davis again with the state of Utah a
case agent who's here presently.
And lastly, Sergeant Jennifer Fuina
also of the Utah Department of Public
Safety. Um and we do anticipate
admitting between
40 and 50 exhibits. Thank you.
All right, Mr. Grunander, I I apologize.
You walked away before I got my question
out. Uh, if we anticipate taking a break
around 10:30,
uh, do you anticipate any potential
exhibits for publication being requested
prior to 10:30?
>> I do, judge. I do. I think the first
several exhibits should be published.
So,
>> all right. Well, let's do this. I I want
our preliminary hearing to move smoothly
and with as least amount of delays as
possible. So, let's take a brief break
to allow the placement of that monitor,
a brief test to make sure it's working
and then we can be seamless in moving
forward.
>> One quick question, judge, for council's
benefit. Are the monitors at the tables
going to be turned on?
>> The monitors are, and that's why I
wanted to give that instruction early on
to for each party to monitor their
monitor. Um because if if the camera is
doing a wide sweep picture of the
courtroom, I I can't prevent it the
accidental capture. Obviously, the
decorum order anticipates not focusing
in to the point that it's focused on
your monitors, but I ask all the parties
to be mindful, especially as it relates
to the sensitive material that may may
be published or may not, but please just
take a look at that um and be mindful of
that. uh but I will leave it to you. So
I believe it's important that all
parties see what is before the court. So
if you have objections, it's right
there. You can say, "Okay, I see what
the court's saying. I have objection or
not." Or or just to confer with your
client. I I I just want to make sure
that there is no uh misunderstanding of
what's being presented to allow all
parties the benefit of the record and it
is clear what is being presented to the
court for consideration as evidence.
Thank you.
>> And we do have one exhibit that will be
in physical form. Um and so we will be
using the easel. I think that's just
over by the jury box.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Grander. Uh
before we break, I do wish to remind the
parties that this is a preliminary
hearing. It is a probable cause
standard. And if you could keep that in
mind as you're presenting your evidence.
This is not intended to chill what you
present, but keep in mind that uh the
standard is probable cause and that is
what the court as a magistrate will be
looking to. All right. With that, let's
uh how much time do we need for the
placement of the monitor?
All right. Well, let's break for six
minutes. Uh well, let's actually let's
make it easy on ourselves. Let's just
come back at 9:35.
uh and and we'll be resume court at that
time. Thank you.
>> All right.
Court is back in session. Noting the
presence of council and the parties to
the state. Are you ready to proceed?
>> Yes, we are, judge. But prior to calling
our first witness, I would like Mr.
McBride to make a brief report on
discovery updates and then just inform
the court that the state has provided
copies of all exhibits for today's
proceedings to the defense uh in advance
of this hearing.
>> All right, Mr. McBride.
>> Yes, your honor. Uh my report the last
hearing um is the latest report as of
June 18th. We had provided approximately
100% of the material in our possession.
Over the last week, we have received
additional materials from SBI uh due to
preparation uh for this hearing. Those
materials have not yet been provided,
but they will be as soon as this hearing
is complete.
>> Thank you. Defense, I require the
benefit of the record.
>> No, your honor.
>> Thank you, Miss Netor. And in case the
mic didn't pick that up, she declined.
All right, turning to the state, you may
call your first witness.
>> Governor of the state calls officer
Chris Bagley.
Officer Begley, if you'd like to come
forward. Looks like he's being brought
into the courtroom.
All right, Officer Begley, if you
wouldn't mind coming forward. uh pass
the electum and being sworn in.
>> You do solemnly swear that the testimony
you shall give in a case now penning
before the court will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So help you God.
>> All right, Officer Begley, if you
wouldn't mind having a seat at the at
the witness table.
And after you're situated, to your left
is a bottle of water. And if you
wouldn't mind bringing the microphone
toward you to ensure that it picks up
your voice.
>> Can you hear that?
>> I can. Thank you, Mr. Gernander, your
witness.
>> Thank you, your honor. Good morning,
sir.
>> Good morning.
>> Will you please state your name for the
record and spell your last name?
>> Christopher Baggley. Last name spelling
B A G L U Y.
>> And um how are you employed? I'm
employed with the Spanish Fork Police
Department as a police officer.
>> As a police officer. Um, what is your
position or your rank there?
>> Uh, just a senior officer.
>> Senior officer. Okay. How long have you
been with the Spanish Fork Police
Department?
>> About 5 months.
>> Five months. How long have you been a
police officer?
>> 26 years.
>> Okay. Um, will you briefly describe uh
for the courts benefit your training um
what you did to become a police officer?
I did the Utah Post uh Academy, which is
about 600 hours of training for basic
things to become a police officer,
report writing, arrest control, stuff to
that effect.
>> When you say post academy, is post an
acronym?
>> It is.
>> What does that stand for?
>> Police officer standard training.
>> Okay. Um
were you certified through post?
>> I was.
>> Okay. And what did that certification
require? uh going through that post and
graduating uh all the academy all the
credits that you can get up with hours
and then
uh physical fitness stuff to that effect
and then graduating from that to earn
the certificate.
>> Was there also testing involved?
>> There was at at the academy.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Um were you employed in September
of 2025?
>> I was.
>> And where were you employed then?
>> Utah Valley Police Department. And how
long did you work for the Utah Valley
University uh Police Department?
>> Uh five years.
>> Five years. Okay.
And do you recall what your position or
your rank was there?
>> A senior officer there.
>> Senior officer. Okay. Describe if you
would um just your general duties as a
police officer at Utah Valley
University.
>> Uh there at Utah Valley University. We'd
patrol the campus. We'd walk around. We
patrol. We would do investigations if
there was crimes to that effect. We'd
make sure that students or staff if they
needed something, we'd be there for
them. So, basic police, kind of like a
school resource officer, community
oriented policing.
>> Okay. Was this a full-time position?
>> It was.
>> Okay. Um, did you work in law
enforcement prior to UVU?
>> I did.
>> And where did you work?
>> I worked at Utah Valley or sorry, Utah
County Sheriff's Office for 13 years. Uh
before that I worked with Springville
City Police Department for six years and
also with the Salt Lake County Sheriff's
Office for a year.
>> What were your positions with those
departments?
>> Uh varies. I did K9, I did SWAT, I did
motors, I senior officer, FTO officer,
uh detectives.
>> Okay.
Um, while you were at Utah Valley
University, did you have access to the
video surveillance system on campus?
>> Yes, I did.
>> Um, and how so?
>> I was at it was at our desktop where our
police station is. Uh, we have desks and
on our desktops, we'd have access to it
there or we'd go into dispatch and
they'd have a wall full of camera
systems that we could look at.
>> How familiar did you become with that
system?
>> Uh, very familiar. Uh, can you describe
how you became very familiar?
>> Um, like I said, it was one of our daily
routines that we'd go in there if we
were looking for somebody or tracking
something back. We'd go in, we'd go back
to that time frame, we could we could
track trace somebody to track somebody
through campus. Um, I'd also turn
around, make some maps so it was easier
for dispatch or somebody to click on an
area in the campuses, where the
buildings were and be able to click a
little bit easier and get a faster
response. So, made some maps and stuff
like that. And how often did you use
this system?
>> Every day.
>> Okay.
Um, did you become familiar with the
campus at Utah Valley University when
you were working there?
>> Yes.
>> And explain how you became familiar with
it.
>> Um, like I said, we we'd walk around. I
would train other officers. We'd make
sure that we knew all the ins and outs,
the back doors. We'd make sure we knew
where every classroom was, where every
entrance and exit was. We'd secure the
building. Uh, we patrol the
neighborhoods. We patrol around campus
and then we also have out offsite
campuses that we drive to and make sure
that they're secure also.
>> Okay. You mentioned that you patrol the
neighborhoods.
>> Yes.
>> Surrounding campus.
>> Yes.
>> What about the neighborhood to the north
and east of campus?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Um what was your purpose of for
patrolling those neighborhoods as an
officer for UVU?
>> Um one it was right next to UVU so we
patrolled it. Sometimes people would run
up in that area or be walking up that
way. We'd have stolen bikes, stuff like
that. So we go into the areas, look for
stuff. Um, also with ORM Police
Department, we'd go back up them quite a
bit for other calls and a lot of what
would be in the area.
>> Okay. So back up just a little bit. So
Utah Valley University is located in
what city?
>> ORM, Utah.
>> Oram, Utah. Okay. Um,
how familiar did you become with the
buildings on campus?
>> Uh, very familiar.
>> And the walkways are very familiar.
>> You mentioned the entrances and exits to
the buildings.
>> Yes. What about parking structures?
>> Yes.
>> Um, same answer for that.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, are you familiar with the
courtyard or or the uh outdoor
amphitheater on campus?
>> I am.
>> And generally speaking, where is that
located on campus?
>> It's more of the central is an outdoor
area centered by a bunch of buildings on
the around it. So, it's in the center of
campus pretty much.
>> Okay. Can you describe um what it looks
like? This courtyard, this amphitheater.
>> It's kind of like an amphitheater look.
So, you got some grass and couple steps
that go up. You got some cement on top
with some bushes and flowers. You've got
places where people can sit and eat.
They come out and study and relax on the
grass. And there's a waterfall
uh with a little pond that comes down
into a stream. So,
>> okay.
Um,
are you familiar with the surroundings,
the buildings around the the the
amphitheater?
>> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. In relationship to this
amphitheater, this courtyard, um, where
is the Hall of Flags located?
>> Uh, it would be directly west of the
courtyard.
>> Okay. Um, is it part of the courtyard or
is it just off the courtyard?
>> It's kind of the courtyard. It like
butts up right against the courtyard.
So, it'll be the west side of the
courtyard.
>> Okay. So to the west of the courtyard,
>> is there a walkway across the Hall of
Flags?
>> There is. There's an inside one and an
outside one.
>> Okay. So what is the Hall of Flags then?
>> The Hall of Flags is a kind of like a
bridge between two buildings that all
the flags throughout the world are
represented in there with some chairs
where people sit down and relax with
windows so you can see through all the
way to the Utah Lake.
>> Okay. What are those two buildings that
are connected by this Hall of Flags? uh
the Fugal building uh over to like the
science building area.
>> Okay. So, you mentioned the Fugal
building. Yes. Where is the Fugal
building located in relationship to this
courtyard?
>> Uh it's kind it's to the south of the
courtyard.
>> Okay. Uh does it run up against the
courtyard?
>> It does.
>> The building. Okay. What about the
Woodberry business building? Where is
that in relationship to the courtyard?
>> That's kind of southeast and it runs up
right against the courtyard also.
>> Okay. And in relationship to the Fugal
building, where is that Sornson or
excuse me, that that business building,
the Woodbury business?
>> Woodbury business is right directly east
of the Fugle.
>> Okay.
Um,
what about the Sorenson Center? Where is
that located with respect to this
courtyard?
>> Uh, the Sorenson Center is going to be
kind of like a northeast
uh of the courtyard.
>> Okay. Does it again run up against this
courtyard? Yes, it does.
>> Okay. And where is it in relationship to
the business building?
>> Woodbury business building is just
directly south of the Swenson.
>> Directly south. Okay. Um the Losi
Center. Are you familiar with that
building?
>> I am.
>> And where is it located on campus?
>> Uh directly east of the courtyard
amphitheater area.
>> Okay. Does it run up to the courtyard,
the Loy Center?
>> No, not really.
>> Okay.
>> It doesn't run right up against it. So
the Sorson building is kind of like
right between those two.
>> Okay. In relationship to the Sornson
building, what direction is the Losi
building?
>> Uh east.
>> East. Okay.
Um are you familiar with the LDS
Institute building on campus?
>> Yes, I am.
>> And where is that located?
>> That is going to be located
north of the Losi building um and just
kind of like northeast of the courtyard.
>> Okay.
And is there a parking structure uh next
to this institute building?
>> Yeah, there's there is.
>> And where is that?
>> That is going to be So you you mentioned
the institute building is going to be
north of the Losi center. There is a
parking structure that has several
levels of parking. It's going to be
directly west of the institute building.
And then they also have a parking struct
not parking structure, parking lot to
the north of that across the road.
>> Okay. with respect to the parking
structure. Okay.
>> Um can you describe for the court how
one would enter this parking structure
driving and even walking? How do you
enter and exit that structure?
>> So on the north end of the parking
structure is campus drive. You can drive
in and exit on the level one. So that's
a ground level. That's where you'd enter
if you're driving in or exiting back out
on campus. Um then goes up to level two.
And on level two at exit is what's
called heat plant road. In between the
institute building and the garage is a
little road and there's an exit right
there that you can drive out. Um you can
also if you were to park in there you
could walk out right there at that exit
only where I was talking about on that
south east side. You can walk out there
or on the north end of that garage
there's some stairs that go up all the
levels and it goes down to the bottom
level
today.
There ain't no doubt I love this.
God bless the US.
This is an area of the buildings plus
the courtyard in middle the grassy area.
So this is an area of the campus at Utah
Valley University.
>> Is it a is it a photograph?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Are you familiar then with what's
depicted in this photograph?
>> Yes, I am. Um, does it fairly and
accurately portray this area of campus?
>> Yes, it does.
>> Okay. Um, can you tell the court what
direction the camera is facing when this
um, photograph was taken?
>> That's kind of facing north and a little
to the east.
>> Okay.
Does it uh, depict a number of the
buildings that we've talked about today?
>> Yes, it does.
>> For example, um, the Hall of Flags. Does
it show the Hall of Flags?
>> Yes, it does. the walkway of it of the
Hall of Flags. Um, what about the
Sorenson Center? Does it show that?
>> Yes, it does.
>> Uh, the Woodbury Business Building?
>> Yes, it does.
>> The Fugal Building?
>> Yes.
>> And what about the Losi Center? Can you
see that from this photograph?
>> Yes.
>> Is this photograph a fair and accurate
depiction of this area of UVU campus on
September 10th, 2025?
>> Yes.
>> Your honor, the state offers states
exhibit one. Your honor, we would object
to failure to lay a foundation for Oh,
I'm sorry.
>> I It is a little bit tricky because that
microphone.
>> Sorry about that.
>> Your honor, we would object um to
inability to authenticate. There's not
been a foundation laid that this officer
took this photo, can verify when it was
taken um or by whom it was taken. So, we
would object.
>> Mr. Gander,
>> would you like us to argue now or
approach the bench?
>> Well, as it relates to this, I'll I'll
hear argument. Okay, judge. First of
all, it's very clear, wellestablished
law that the person who took the
photograph is not required to be present
to lay the foundation for it. Uh what's
required for foundation is that the
witness has knowledge of what's depicted
in the photograph um and uh can testify
to its accuracy. And that's exactly what
this off officer has done. We laid an
ample amount of foundation about this
area of campus. He's confirmed that uh
it depicts this area of campus that was
previously described. He confirmed the
buildings that he can see there. He also
confirmed that it was an accurate
depiction of this on September 10th,
2025.
>> Thank you. Any further argument, Miss
Nesser?
>> Mr. Hernander, it
>> I we did file a um standing objection at
the very beginning of the hearing. I
would just refer to our standing
objection as well. Um, I know this is
not a there's no written testimony in
this, but just out of an abundance of
caution, I want to um also refer to our
standing objection.
>> Thank you, Miss Nester. All right.
Having considered the uh arguments, I
find uh I'm going to overrule the
objection and admit exhibit one. This
witness has uh firsthand knowledge of
the location as well as the building
locations that foundation has been laid.
He also stated it was a fair and
accurate representation of what's being
depicted here. And for those reasons,
the defense objection is overruled.
States exhibit one is admitted into
evidence and may be published uh to the
courtroom.
>> Okay.
So, the state would move to publish that
to the courtroom.
>> And it it is so granted.
Officer Bagley, are you able to see the
monitor that's um here in the court
that's pointed towards the uh the
gallery?
>> Yes.
>> Um
from where you're seated, are you
comfortable in describing um where the
courtyard is on that photograph on that
exhibit?
>> Yes.
>> And for the record, where is that
located?
>> Uh so all the grass that looks like a
triangle. Uh the amphitheater look that
is going to be the courtyard
amphitheater area. Uh it's got the tint
in it. the white tent that's at the
bottom on the far left of the picture.
That would be the courtyard area that's
is surrounded by buildings, more of the
grass area.
>> I'm going to approach the photo. Well,
I'm just going to when you look at this
this exhibit to the left of the
photograph,
um there's a walkway there. What is that
walkway?
>> So, the red brick walkway that is going
north to the top of the picture on the
far left is going to be the Hall of
Flags, the outside top of it.
>> Okay. On the bottom of this photograph,
um there's a white roofed building. Um
it's the largest building, at least as
far as what's depicted on this exhibit.
What building is that?
>> That would be the Fugal building.
>> Okay. And just to the right of that, so
that would be to the east of the Fugal
building. What building is that?
>> The other red brick pathway area, that
is the Woodbury business building.
>> Okay. And if I were to walk north, so
left on this photograph with respect to
that uh red brick walkway area, there's
another building sort of triangular in
shape, the the rooftop. What building is
that
>> with that white rooftop? That would be
the Saenson building.
>> That's the Sorenson building. What about
the Losi building? You've described
that. Where is that located on this
photograph?
>> If you go to that triangle white roof,
if you go directly to the right, so the
right side of the picture, that is going
to be the Losi building. He's got
several levels.
>> Is it to the right and up up a little
bit as well?
>> Okay. And that would be east on this
photograph. Is that
>> it's got the gravel rooftop.
>> Gravel rooftop. Okay. Um
I referred you to the LDS Institute
building. Are you able to see that in
this photograph?
>> Yes, you are.
>> And where is that located?
>> Asking you directly north of the Losi
building. It's going to be that other
white roofed building on the far top of
the picture.
>> Okay. Thank you, officer.
We can take that down, your honor, as
far as the publication.
Officer Bagley, I'm going to take you
back to the date of September 10th,
2025.
Do you recall that day generally?
>> I do.
>> Uh, were you working that day?
>> Yes, I was.
>> At UVU?
>> I was. Yes.
>> Okay. Um,
do you remember what time your shift
started approximately?
>> Yes, it approximately started about
11:00 in the morning.
>> 11:00 in the morning. Okay. Did you
receive a specific assignment shortly
after coming onto duty?
>> Yes, I did.
>> And what was that assignment?
>> We It was to secure the top of the Hall
of Flags on the south end. So, we had
people that were gathering on top of
that that were looking down on top of
the tent. So, we wanted to secure that
area. So, I was put up on top of the
Hall of Flags on the south end.
>> Okay. My apologies, your honor. Could we
have exhibit one published again? Go
ahead and republish stage exhibit one.
>> Thank you.
>> You mentioned that you were securing the
south end of the walkway on top of the
Hall of Flags.
>> Yes.
>> And so where where do we find that in
this exhibit, officer?
>> So if you can see the tent, the white
tent there, that rooftop where the red
brick is. I was on top of that and
there's some actually looks like yellow
crime scene tape. That was some of our
barrier that we put up so people
wouldn't go above that and walk. So I
was sitting right by those flower pots
plants that were by the fugle on the
south end.
>> So is the south end on the bottom of
this photograph? Yes.
>> Where that walkway kind of begins from
the bottom?
>> Yes.
>> And you've referred to a tent. Is that
the the white object we see inside the
courtyard?
>> Yeah, that square white object with the
tent.
>> Okay. Thank you. So you were securing
that area.
>> Yes.
Um,
did you have the opportunity that
morning, you you mentioned you checked
on about 11:00
>> that morning and and later to um walk
around campus that day?
>> Yes.
>> Uh, did you walk along the Hall of Flags
that day?
>> I did.
>> That walkway?
>> Yes.
>> Uh, did you visit the courtyard that day
as well?
>> Uh, down below. Yes. On the south end I
was telling.
>> Okay. Um,
let's see.
Officer, I'm going to turn your
attention to states exhibit number two,
and that should come up on your monitor
there.
Let me know when you see that if you
would.
>> Your honor, if we could maybe not have
it on the lectern screen. We're getting
reports that the documents shown on the
lectern screen are being live streamed.
It's live streamed. Um, so maybe if we
could just not show that one until it's
admitted.
>> Mr. Greener, I'll submit it to the court
judge. I've got I've got copies of these
for myself.
Okay.
>> But I can refer refer to as I'm asking
questions.
>> All right. Well, I'll go ahead and grant
the request by Miss Netor. We'll go
ahead and for
>> turn it off.
>> Just there should be a power button to
turn it off.
Not sure where that's at. It's right
here.
>> Thank you, Jeff.
Go ahead.
Sorry. Okay, you're good. And if and if
at any point, Mr. Grander, you do need
the uh to use the monitor, let's revisit
that. And obviously, uh Miss Nester, you
can renew your objection if needs be.
But for now, the monitor's turned off.
Let's go ahead and proceed.
>> Thank you. Officer, do you see states
exhibit number two on your monitor?
>> Yes, I do.
>> And do you recognize that?
>> I do.
>> And what is that?
This is a picture of the from the east
side looking west of the campus.
>> Okay. Um are you familiar with what's
depicted in this photograph?
>> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. Um and does it um show, for
example, the Losi Center that we've
talked about?
>> Yes, it does.
>> Does it depict the uh Woodbury business
building that we've talked about?
>> Yes.
>> What about the Fugal building?
>> Yes. Does it show the Sorenson Center?
>> Yes.
>> And also the Hall of Flags?
>> Yes.
>> Uh, in this particular exhibit, can you
also see the courtyard?
>> I can. A partial of it.
>> A partial of it. Okay.
>> Um, does it fairly and accurately depict
this area of campus of UVU on September
10th, 2025?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Your state offers states exhibit
number two. Your honor, we renew our
standing objection. We also argue that a
foundation hasn't been laid in terms of
the time this was taken or who took it
um and at what point in time this was um
created and how. So, I don't think he
has any personal knowledge of that and
we'd object.
>> Mr. Gander,
>> same arguments. Judge, he has testified
that he's familiar with it. He has
personal familiarity with it. He's
testified that it's fair and accurate um
as of the day of September 10th, 2025.
and that's what was asked of him.
>> All right, I will go ahead and overrule
the objection by defense uh noting that
the witness has laid uh well he has
expressed uh that this is a fair and
accurate representation of what it
purports to be and he's familiar with
it. He was there on the day
on September 10th and because that
foundation has been laid uh states
exhibit 2 is admitted and may be
published.
Thank you, judge. Um, state moves to
publish exhibit two.
>> All right.
>> Um, officer, I'm going to direct your
attention to this uh exhibit on the
monitor um facing the gallery of the
court today. Okay.
>> Um,
can you describe uh there's a there's a
large building in the middle of that
photograph slightly above the middle,
but what building are we looking at
there?
>> You're looking at the top of the Los the
rooftop of the Losi building. It's got
two different grays, like a lighter gray
and a darker gray kind of.
>> Are you familiar with that rooftop then?
>> Yes, I am.
>> And what's it made of?
>> It's made of gravel.
>> Gravel. Okay. You you mentioned two
different grades or did you say grays?
>> Grays.
>> Grays. Okay. All right.
>> Um,
now you you described that you could you
could see the courtyard, but it wasn't
easily visible in this photograph. Where
is the courtyard located on the state's
exhibit number two? So you got the white
roof that's going to be in the middle
just just to the top of the building
where the LCI is I described. There's a
white roof there. That's the Sorson
building and it's just below that you
can see some grass and that's where the
courtyard is. It's just to the left of
that white roof. Your honor, I'm going
to ask if the witness could actually
come down from the stand and and point
out where the courtyard is located in
this exhibit for the court's benefit.
>> All right. So we have a second
microphone. So, uh, it picks up his
voice.
Okay, Miss Nester, thank you for
allowing us. Uh, officer, you may step
down, approach the monitor, and I would
ask that you uh speak into the
microphone when when responding to a
question.
>> Okay. Can you hear me?
>> I can. Thank you. So officer, for our
benefit, would you describe again where
the Aloi center is in this photograph?
>> Aloi center is going to be this one with
the gray roofs. It's got two different
colors of gray.
>> Two different colors of gray. Okay. I'm
blind. I can't see those two different
colors from here, but um can you
describe where the Looks like we went
blank.
>> There we go.
>> Can you point to where the courtyard is
located on that exhibit? Courtyard's
going to be here where this grass is in
this area right here.
>> Okay. And um what about the Fugal
building?
>> Fugal building is going to be this
building right here.
>> And the Woodbury business building then?
>> Woodbury is going to be this one right
here with this red brick path
>> and the Sorenson Center.
>> Sorenson Center is going to be this
white roofed one that's right here.
>> Okay. Now on this exhibit, can you see
the LDS Institute building and the
parking structure that we've talked
about?
>> No, not really. You got the back side of
the institute building which is right
here and the parking structures over
there.
>> Mr. Gander, let me stop you just for the
benefit of the record because the record
is picking up the audio. When you're
pointing it to and I know it may be a
little bit laborious to do this, but as
you're identifying, indicate the general
location on it, the left side, right
side, middle, uh upper, lower, just so
the record knows to some degree where
you're pointing. Uh and that way because
the video isn't being captured. So if
you would do that, it just creates a
more complete record. Thank you.
>> Understood. That's fair. Thank you,
judge. Um,
so again, let's point to the courtyard
and if you'll describe as best you can
where that is located on the photograph.
>> On this photograph, the courtyard is
going to be this grass area. That's
going to be to the towards the top of
the picture. The baseball field's behind
it. It's closer to the surrounding
buildings. There's some grass in there.
That would be the courtyard area.
>> Okay. Okay, we've talked about the Hall
of Flags and the walkway above that
Hall. Where is that located on this
photograph?
>> The Hall of Flags is going to be right
by the courtyard just to the west of it.
There's a red brick towards the top of
the picture. There's a red brick pathway
that goes from the Fugal building which
is on the left of the picture towards
the right of the picture which is a
science building area.
>> Okay. And then the Sorenson Center, is
that the uh building in the middle with
the large white roof?
>> Yeah, it's going to be kind of towards
the upper part of the picture, middle of
it. It's going to be a white roof. That
will be the Sornson Center.
>> And it just to the north and east of the
courtyard.
>> Yes. North and east.
>> Okay. And then finally, if you would
describe the Losi building, the location
of that on this exhibit.
>> The Losi building is going to be pretty
much in the middle on the right side. So
middle to the right. Uh it's going to
have two different colors of gray, a
darker gray, and a lighter gray. There's
a red pathway, and that will be the Los
Cy Center.
>> Okay.
You mentioned officer that uh there were
different stories on the Losi building.
How many stories did the dloce building
have?
>> There's four.
>> Four stories. Okay. You mentioned that
you were familiar with the rooftop. Do
you know how to gain access to the
rooftop of the Losi building?
>> Yes. There's actually an outside
stairway stairway right here that comes
up. It's going to be just to the south
of Losi building. There's a red pathway
right directly in the middle of the
picture. Off to the south of that on the
left side of the picture is an outdoor
staircase stairway.
>> Is that open to the public?
>> It is.
>> And um how would someone access the roof
from that stairway?
>> If they came up to they put some right
here on this pathway that goes between
the Losi center and down towards the
computer science building. There's a red
pathway. There's actually a little
handrail like a little guardrail
probably about a couple feet high that
that that somebody could jump over.
Is that area restricted? Is it off
limits?
>> Yes, it is. There's kind of like a
natural barrier with the guardrail. And
from there on, there's no path. It's
It's gravel roof, so it's not paved like
everything else.
>> But someone could hop over that railway.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you, officer. You can take
your seat again.
Officer Bagley, I'm now going to refer
you to your attention to states exhibit
number three. That's going to come up on
your monitor as well.
Let me know when you see that.
Yes, I do see it.
>> Okay. And do you recognize that?
>> I do.
>> And what is that?
>> This is a drone picture of uh the
campus,
more of the courtyard looking eastward.
>> Okay. Um I've asked you about several
buildings on campus. Um I'm going to ask
you about those same buildings, whether
they're depicted in this exhibit. Okay.
Do you see where the Hall of Flags is
located? Yes, I do. It's down towards
the bottom. It's a red brick pathway. It
would be the hall flags.
>> Okay. What about the Fugal building?
>> Fugal building is going to be to the
right of the picture. It's going to be a
white roof building off to the right
directly south of the courtyard.
>> And the Woodbury business building
>> Woodbury Woodbury is going to be another
red path that's going to be just to the
east of the Fugal building. It's got a
gray roof and some red paths.
>> The Sorenson Center.
>> Sorenson Center is going to be on the
left of the picture. It's going to have
a white roof. uh different levels and
that would be the Sorenson Center.
>> Okay. The Losi Center, where is that
located in relationship to the Sorenson
Center that you've described
>> of the Sorenson Center? It's going to be
just directly east of the Sorenson
Center towards the top of the picture.
Uh you can see the two different colors
of grave, the gravel that's on the roof.
>> Okay. And can you see the courtyard in
this in this photograph?
>> Yes, you can.
>> Okay. Um,
is this picture a fair and accurate
depiction of this area of Utah Valley
University's campus on September 10th,
2025?
>> Yes.
>> State offers exhibit 3, your honor.
>> We renew the standing objection. We also
object again that this individual can't
identify when the um picture was made or
how it was made or by whom.
>> Mr. Gander,
>> same response, judge. And just just for
the record, I was to also point the c
the court to state v. PCEL, which is a
Supreme Court case um here in the state
of Utah, 1985,
which essentially stands for the
proposition that if a competent witness
with personal knowledge uh of the facts
represented in a photograph can testify
that that photograph accurately
represents those facts. Um the the
exhibit's admissible. He's also spoke
about the date being September 10th,
2025. Uh the showing that's required
here is essentially a primmaaccious
showing. Um we're not required to show
proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for
example, that it was accurate that day
or even a prepoundonderance of the
evidence. Uh but we'll submit it on
that, judge.
>> All right. I'm just
taking a brief glance at the
case you cited.
>> I can give the citation if you're on.
>> If you if you have that, I'd appreciate
that. It's 711
Pacific 2
243
and I'm looking at page number 245.
All right.
the coins that the witness is uh
familiar with the scene. He testified
that it is a fair and accurate
representation of what states exhibit
three purports to be and the court finds
a necessary foundation has been laid and
overrules the objection. State exhibit 3
may be admitted is admitted and may be
published.
>> State would move to publish state
exhibit 3.
>> All right.
May I approach the witness, your honor?
>> You may.
>> Officer sir, if you would come down into
the well of the court. I'm going to ask
you a few questions about this this
exhibit three as well.
>> Okay.
Um,
>> can you point out where the Hall of
Flags is located and describe that for
the record?
>> Uh, the Hall of Flags is going to be
down here on the bottom of the picture.
It's going to have a red brick pathway
with some flowers along the top of it.
>> You mentioned that you you were securing
an area of that.
>> Yes.
>> That hall that walkway. Where were you
where were you stationed?
>> I was down here by the end of the flower
pots, which is down here on the south
side towards the Fugal building on the
far right of the picture.
>> Okay. Um, in relationship to where you
were stationed, where is the uh fugal
building then?
>> The fugal building is just to the right
of me. So, it would be on the south end
of me.
>> Okay. And so, it's on the right side of
the photograph there.
>> Far right side of the photograph. Yes.
>> What about the the business building?
>> The business building is just going to
be in the middle of the picture on the
far right. It's going to have some red
brick pathways. It's going to be
multi-level and that would be the
Woodbury building.
>> Okay. Um, the Sorenson Center, where is
that located on the photograph?
>> Sorenson Center is going to be middle to
far left of the picture. It's going to
have a white roof on top of it,
multi-level.
>> Okay. And the Losi Center, where is that
located?
>> Losi Center is going to be to the
towards the top of the the picture,
kind of offc centered a little bit, but
it's going to have the four or five
floors that are the four floors that are
sitting right there.
>> Okay. Um,
can you describe those stories? What
we're looking at? Where do you find one,
two, three, four, and and possibly five?
>> So, this is ground level where the
courtyard is. So, this as you go over in
towards the Losi building inside, uh
there's an elevator. That would be
ground one, level one. Level two would
be the second one where these red um
ATVs are sitting on the grass right
there in the middle of the picture. If
you go up from that, that would be the
third level. And your fourth level,
which is the actual top level of the
building, is that very top one with the
windows that you can see.
>> Okay. Is there an atrium on the top of
that?
>> There is an atrium. It's actually it's
got a little sphere on the top of it. It
looks like a little square right on top
of the Losi building. That would be an
atrium.
>> Now, you mentioned two shades of gray on
the rooftop of the Losi building.
>> Yes.
>> Can you see that on this exhibit?
>> I can. So, where the atrium is is a
lighter gray gravel. And on the west
side, um, cuz I'm looking east, on the
west side, there's two, uh, ventilations
for the Losi building, two vents on top
of that. It's in the darker gray.
>> Okay.
>> You mentioned you're familiar with the
rooftop of the Losi Center, correct?
>> Uh, when someone is standing on the Losi
Center, can they say see down into the
courtyard?
>> Yes, they can.
>> And where is the courtyard located? be
in the center of the picture with the
grass and the atrium style steps.
>> Would that be direct would that would be
west of the Losi center then?
>> Yes, it would be directly west of the
Losi center.
>> Okay. Now, in a couple of the other
exhibits, we saw a tent that was down uh
set up in the courtyard. Can you see
that tent set up in the courtyard in
this photograph?
>> Uh you cannot in this in this picture.
You can't. It would be where I explained
where the hall flags is. It's directly
underneath the hall flags like just on
the grass right there.
>> Okay. Can someone Is there a clear line
of sight between the tent and the top of
the Losi center the rooftop?
>> Yes, there is.
>> Okay. Is some of it obstructed?
>> Yes.
>> Obstructed by what?
>> Uh the Senson building that's right
here. Uh this white roof that's going to
be this kind of obstructs a little bit
of the view of the courtyard.
>> So where would you have to be standing
or perhaps lying down on the Losi center
to see into the courtyard where that
tent was? On the far south side of the
Losi building, you could have a line of
sight towards the courtyard.
>> And that's the top roof.
>> The top roof. Yes.
>> With a darker shade of gray. You see?
>> Okay. Thank you, officer.
I am going to refer the witness now to
states exhibit number 35.
And officer Bagley, when you see that,
go ahead and let me know.
Do you recognize what that is, officer?
>> I don't have it yet.
>> Oh, okay.
So, we don't have this in electronic
form. We do. Okay. Um,
well, I'll refer you to the uh the
exhibit that's to your left and behind
you. Do you see that?
>> I do. and it's marked as states exhibit
35 with a a yellow sticker. Is that
correct?
>> Yes, I can see that on top left of the
photo.
>> Um well, for the record, um if we can
publish that on the witness's screen.
>> Thank you, Mr. Gernander. I was just
going to mention that uh we shouldn't
display it until it's been admitted in.
So,
>> do you see states exhibit 35 in your
monitor?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. Can you do you recognize that?
>> Yes, I do.
>> And what is that?
>> This is an aerial view of the campus and
the northeast area just north of the
campus neighborhoods of Utah Valley
University in Or
>> Okay. Um,
and how can you personally tell that
this is a a photograph of that of of the
campus and the neighborhood to the
northeast of campus?
>> I can tell because I recognize all the
buildings, the roads that are around it,
the streets, the roundabouts, the
neighborhood to the north or to the
towards the top of the building or
picture also.
>> Now, we've I've asked you about several
buildings and landmarks on campus. Um,
are you able to see the courtyard on
this exhibit?
>> Yes, you are.
>> And just for the record, can you
describe where this is located on the
the exhibit?
>> So, right in the center towards the
bottom, there's a white triangle roof
that's white. That would be the Sornson
building. It's the patch of grass that's
just directly
south of towards the bottom of that on
the picture. So, it's kind of centered,
but more towards the bottom, right in
the middle.
On this exhibit, are you able to see the
Fugal building?
>> Yes, I am.
>> And in relationship to this courtyard,
where is that located?
>> That's going to be south of the
courtyard with the white roof.
>> What about the Woodbury business
building?
>> Woodbury business building is going to
be to the east and it's going to have a
red brick path top.
>> Okay.
Um, can you see the hollow flags on
this?
>> Yes, you can.
And where is that located in
relationship to the courtyard again?
>> Uh, it's strictly west of the courtyard
>> and the Losi center. Can you see the
Losi center?
>> Yes, you can see the Los center.
>> Where is that at?
>> It's going to be kind of northeast of
the courtyard. The two patches of gray
that's almost in the center uh of the
picture, just to the slight right of the
center.
>> Okay. Um, I've asked you previously
about the LDS Institute building. Can
you see that on this exhibit?
>> Yes, you can. And where is that located
in relationship to the Losi Center?
>> It's directly north of the Losi Center.
It's got a white roof and it's almost
directly in the center of the photo.
>> Okay. And is we've talked about a
parking structure that's nearby the
institute building. Do you see that?
>> Yes. It's just to the west or left side
of the picture of the institute
building.
>> Okay.
Is this a fair and accurate um depiction
of Utah Valley University's campus and
the surrounding neighborhood to the
north and east on September 10th, 2025?
>> Yes.
>> State offers states exhibit 35.
Your honor, renew the standing objection
and object on the grounds that there's
no indication on this photograph of when
it was taken in terms of relation to the
actual incident at issue here.
>> Thank you, Miss Nester.
Mr. Gernadett,
>> same response, judge, but I would just
add one more case for the court's
benefit. Um, this is state v wager or
wagger w a geer.
This is a Utah court of appeals case
from 2016.
Uh the citation is 372
Pacific 391.
And the significance of this case, your
honor, um at issue there was a
photograph of the defendant there who
was smoking methamphetamine allegedly in
his bathroom. Um the witness that was
testifying that laying the foundation at
trial um was not present when the
photograph was taken. um
could not tell the date on which it was
taken, but he had been in the bathroom
before, was familiar with the
defendant's bathroom and familiar with
the defendant. He testified to that
personal knowledge and the court found
that was sufficient foundation. So that
case, in addition to the other case, the
PCEL case and my previous arguments and
I'll submit it to the court.
>> Miss Nester, anything else you wish to
add?
>> No, your honor.
>> All right.
Given the testimony of the witness who's
testified, he's familiar with this
location. He went in detail describing
the various neighborhoods and location.
He mentioned the roundabout uh and
identified the buildings in states
exhibit 35
and uh it was noted that it is a fair
and accurate representation
of this campus as of September 10th,
2025. The court is going to overrule the
objection and states exhibit 35 is
admitted into evidence and may be
published.
>> Thank you, judge. The state moves to
publish it and if granted, I would may I
approach the exhibit? You may
officer, I've asked you about a number
of the buildings located on campus. So,
I'm just going to ask you a couple of
questions about those and to help orient
the court to what the judge is looking
at and then ask you about some of the
streets in in the neighborhood. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> For the court's benefit, can you point
out um where the LDS Institute building
is?
>> Yes, I can.
>> And I'm going to approach the witness
again if you could describe where it's
at on that exhibit 35.
>> Okay.
Okay. Can you hear me?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, you want the LDS institute
building?
>> Yes, please.
>> That is this white roof right here is
the institute building.
>> Is that in basically the center of the
exhibit?
>> It's almost exactly in the center of the
exhibit.
>> Okay. And where is the Losi um center
located on that?
>> If you were to go down towards the
bottom of the photo, there's two
different graves of gravel on this roof.
This would be the Losi building right
here. So below the institute building
and to the right slightly
>> slightly to the right.
>> Can you uh point out for the court's
benefit where the courtyard is?
>> The courtyard is going to be to the west
or left side of the picture. There's
some grass in between two buildings that
have a white roofs. There would be a
grass area right there with some steps.
Uh that is going to be the courtyard
area and that's going to be down towards
the center bottom of the photo.
>> So that's to the left and down.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Um you mentioned the parking
strut. Where's the parking structure uh
next to the institute building?
>> There's two institute building right
here in the center with the white roof.
The parking structure is going to be
just to the left of the institute or
west side. Uh there's a road in between
it called the heat plant road which is
the road that goes between those two.
>> And can you point out for the court's
benefit how one would enter that um or
exit that parking structure by way of
vehicle or walking? by entering. You can
enter and exit right here on the on the
north side of the of the parking
structure. There's an entrance and exit
right here. That's into level one
>> for a vehicle
>> for vehicles.
>> And I guess someone could walk in there
as well.
>> Uh yes, if they were to park into this
LDS Institute parking lot over here on
the on the north side of that, there's a
tunnel that goes underneath the road
that still comes out into the parking
structure itself. Um and then they can
exit out here on the second level onto
Heat Plant Road, which would be is that
road between the LDS Institute building
and the parking structure is the heat
plant. They can exit there and go back
towards uh Campus Drive. So, you could
walk out either up here on the northeast
side of the parking structure and cross
over to the LDS Institute or you can
come out here to the southeast side and
you can exit there and walk down to the
courtyard or behind the LDS Institute
building towards the Losi Center.
>> Okay, thank you. You mentioned Campus
Drive. Where's Campus Drive located on
that?
>> Campus Drive starts right up here
towards the top left of the picture.
It's almost like a T and it's the curved
road that comes all the way down in
front of the institute building and and
the parking structure and it goes all
the way around campus, comes back down
to the bottom of the picture where the
roundabout is and that would be Campus
Drive.
>> Okay. Are you familiar with where 800
South is in Oram?
>> Yes.
>> Is that depicted on this exhibit?
>> It is.
>> Where is that at?
>> It's at the top of this photo. It's
going to be the long straight road.
That's right here at the top of the
photo.
>> Okay.
What about um 850 South? Are you
familiar with that street?
>> I am. 850 South is going to be towards
the the right of the photo uh top right
of it, there's going to be a street that
goes east to west. Uh it looks like a
horseshoe kind of is going to be the
road that goes east to west. In the
middle of that horseshoe be 850.
>> Okay. So 850 is parallel to 800 south.
>> Yes.
>> Uh and just below on this photograph.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Are you familiar with 600 west?
>> I am. And where's that street in
relationship to 850 south?
>> That would be on the far right side of
the horseshoe. So towards the right side
of the picture and it's going to be the
right side of that horseshoe.
>> And that runs north and south.
>> North and south.
>> Okay. What about 720 West? Are you
familiar with that street?
>> Yes, I am.
>> And where's that at?
>> That's going to be to the left side of
the horseshoe that runs north and south
and it comes down towards the bottom.
>> Okay. And finally, 925 south.
>> 925 southicted
>> is going to be on the bottom of the
horseshoe that connects those other two
wests.
>> Okay. So, just in summary, will you
describe the horseshoe and what streets
amount make up that horseshoe?
>> So, the horseshoe comes up off of 800
South and directly south of that, you'll
have 850 south, which is going to be
running east to west. Uh on the left
side is 725 west of the horseshoe and it
comes down into 925 south which wraps
back around to 600 west on the far right
side of the horseshoe on the right side
of the picture.
>> Okay. Thank you officer. You can be
seated.
Okay. I'm going to take you back to
September 10th, 2025. You mentioned you
were on campus. You had a particular
assignment.
>> Yes.
>> Um, Mr. Grander, I'm sorry. Let's We're
just going to pull down the exhibits.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. You may continue.
>> Would you like me to take this exhibit
down, Judge?
>> Are we Are you referring to it in your
line of questioning right now?
>> Um, not right now. I'm not.
>> Okay. Let's go ahead and take it down.
So you were you were securing the the
Hall of Flags walkway, correct?
>> Yes.
>> On the south end.
>> Yes.
>> Um
what was happening that morning, that
day on at campus at UVU? I I came in to
do a shift for a special event that
where we had a guest speaker come in and
was going to talk to the students and
people around the neighborhood.
>> Do you know who the guest speaker was?
>> I do.
>> And who was that?
>> It was Charlie Kirk.
>> Did you see Mr. Kirk that day?
>> I did.
>> When did you first see him?
>> Uh when he arrived on campus uh just
behind the west side of uh the Hall of
Flags, I saw him pull up.
And can someone access the courtyard in
that through that area?
>> Yes, they can.
>> How so?
>> Uh where he pulled up underneath the
Hall of Flags is a opening to where you
could drive a car underneath. Uh so
there's access right there. You could
walk or drive underneath the Hall of
Flags.
>> And you saw him arrive?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Um
can describe what what you were what you
were seeing? What did you observe?
On that day, I uh observed Charlie going
back doing some meet and greet with some
people, getting some photos taken. Uh he
then came underneath the Hall of Flags
and went to his tent and he was there as
answering questions and talking to
individuals that would ask him
questions.
>> The tent you're referring to, is that
the tent that we see when it was set up
in the courtyard?
>> Yeah, that white square tent,
>> the white top.
>> Yes, he was under that.
Fast forward to about about 12:20 or so.
So, a little bit after noon, the noon
hour. Uh, what happened? What did you
see? What did you hear? I heard an
individual talking to Charlie and I
happened to kind of glance over the edge
of the railing about that time. Um, I
could see the right side of Charlie's
shoulder. So, not his whole body cuz I
had the he was underneath the tent. So,
I could only see probably the right side
of his body. Um, he was answering a
question. kid asked him a question and
then I heard a shot fired.
>> Do you know what time that was?
>> Uh, yes.
>> What time was that?
>> 12:23.
>> What did you see
>> at that moment? I saw him lean to the
left. So I
>> When you say him, you
>> Charlie.
>> Charlie.
>> Charlie. So I saw him go to the left
because I could no longer see the right
side of his body. So he went further
underneath the tent to the north side of
the tent. So left.
>> Okay. Um can you describe the reaction
of others that were there?
>> Uh yeah, so then um everybody started
getting up and starting to run uh in
more of a chaos kind of situation.
>> Before you continue, can you describe a
little bit? So you mentioned Mr. Kirk
was answering questions, talking to
individuals.
>> Yes.
>> Were there others present?
>> Yes.
>> Um any idea about approximately how
many?
>> How would you describe it in your terms?
In my terms, I'd say when I was up there
looking down, I'd say there's several
thousand people cuz you had it on the
grass that was jam-packed in the
amphitheater sitting on the grass. You
had people standing on the back up along
the cement. You had people that were on
the second level, the Saenson, and over
by the Woodbury building. There's
another level there where a lot of
people were standing and watching.
>> So, it was it was pretty packed. Several
thousand people.
>> You mentioned So, you mentioned you
heard something. What did you hear
again?
>> I heard a gunshot.
>> Okay. And can you describe the re you
described Mr. Kirk's reaction. Was that
simultaneous to hearing the the gunshot?
>> Yes, it was.
>> When he fell to the left?
>> Yes.
>> Did you see the reaction from the crowd?
>> Yes.
>> What was that?
>> Everybody kind of got up. They all said
a lot of people were screaming, standing
up, and starting to run in all different
directions away from the center of the
tent.
>> Okay. You're a police officer
>> helping to secure the area, correct?
>> Yes.
>> What did you do? Um, at that moment I
recognized it as gunfire. I uh I left
Gross, which was right there on the
south end of the Hall of Flags. I went I
proceeded to between right where the
Fugal and the Hall of Flags meet.
There's some outside stairs that I was
starting to run down. As I was trying to
get down to the bottom of the stairs,
people are running up. People are laying
down on the steps. I'm trying to jump
over people to get to the bottom of the
stairs so I can help uh stop an
individual that's probably shooting.
>> Um,
what happened next? Um, by the time I
got to the bottom of the stairs, we I
was informed on the radio that we had a
shooter in custody. So, I thought at
that moment I was like, "Oh, that was
kind of fast." Obviously, it was close
range probably because we had an
individual in custody. Another officer
came on said we had an individual in
custody. So, I decided to since this
since the threat is gone now, I can
assess for anybody that's injured and
start looking for any medical needs that
that's needed at that moment. Um, I
started canvasing the area. Um, as I
canvased the area, I was looking for
anybody that was injured. I saw a kid on
the ground that was on the about the
second or third tier of the in the grass
next to a wheelchair and he was uh
almost convulsing. I thought he'd maybe
been shot. Uh, talked to the dad as I
was running over there. He said that he
was just having a seizure that he was
fine. He was not injured. So then at
that moment I I I observed that there
was no other injuries that I could see
at that moment.
>> Okay. Did did was your attention drawn
to anything else at that time?
>> Yeah. So, after we got some people kind
of cleared away a little bit, I thought
I needed to start preserving the scene
because we had a crime scene and with
some of my experience and training and
to that effect of I decided now we need
to contain the scene and help preserve
as much evidence as we can. So, I
started pushing people off the grass um
out of the courtyard area because I knew
that's where the crime scene was. Um,
soon as we started pushing those guys
out, I uh my my chief, Chief Long, that
was right next to me. I looked down and
saw an empty pistol holder that was
sitting just on top of the grass. And at
that moment, things had died down just a
split second. I realized that the shot I
heard was more of a rifle shot and not a
pistol shot.
>> And um what causes you to say that? Uh
just from being around firearms through
all my trainings, um the difference is,
you know, a handgun is more of a short
bang pop sound. Uh with a rifle, you
have a more of a longer violent
bang or crackle sound. It's more of a
violent kind of sound. It's longer. So
that's why I recognized it.
>> Okay. Is a is a rifle sound louder
typically? Yes.
>> Okay. Um,
going back to when you heard this this
gunshot, could you tell uh where where
it came from?
>> Direction?
>> Yes, I knew it came to the from the east
of me.
>> From the east of you. Okay. So, you see
this this realization comes to your
mind. What did you do next?
>> Um, at that moment when I saw the the
holster, the empty holster, I turned to
my chief and I said, "That was that was
a rifle shot." He said, "I agree." And I
looked up at that moment uh right in the
line of sight I could see the Losi
building had a direct line of sight. So
I proceeded to go look at that and see
what was going on up there.
>> Okay. Can you just briefly describe your
route to the Losi center?
>> So from the courtyard you can go into
the Sorson Center and like I said there
earlier there was on level one there's
some elevators or there stairs. I ran up
four flights of stairs. uh got to the
fourth level of the Losi building and
proceeded to the south of the Losi
building. There's some stairs which is
at uh breezeway between the computer
science building and the Losi building.
There's some stairs that go up to the
top of that and so I went to the top of
that.
>> Is that the stairway that you previously
described?
>> Yes, on the outside of the Losi building
just
>> Okay. That it's an and it's a public
stairway.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um did you make it to the rooftop?
>> I did. Do you know about what time you
got there?
>> Um, I pro I got there at 12:44.
>> Okay. Um, what did you do when you got
on top?
>> Uh, when I got on top, I hopped over the
guardrail. Um, I noticed that there was
a an object which was sitting right
about 10 or 15 ft in from the other side
of the guardrail in the gravel. That
looked out of place to me.
And in relationship to where you hopped
over the guardrail, what direction was
that object?
>> Uh to the west of the guardrail.
>> Okay. And um did you recognize the
object?
>> I did.
>> And what was it?
>> It was a red and black screwdriver.
>> Okay. Um did you touch that object?
>> I did not.
>> Okay.
I am going to refer the witness on your
screen. Officer Baggley to states
exhibit 3.1.
Let me know when you see that.
>> Yes, I see it.
>> Do you recognize what that is?
>> I do.
>> And what is that?
>> That's a picture of the screwdriver that
I saw that day on top of the rooftop of
the Losi building.
>> Okay.
And that's how it appeared on the roof
that day?
>> Yes.
>> Is that a fair and accurate portrayal of
the screwdriver you observed and found
that day?
>> Yes.
on the state offers states exhibit 30.1.
>> Miss Nester, your honor, we renew,
excuse me, we renew our standing
objection and object on the grounds that
there's no foundation laid as to when
the photo was taken or by whom. Thank
you.
>> Same response, judge. My previous
arguments.
>> And did you state that this was a fair
and accurate representation as of
September 10th, 2021?
>> I had said that day. I'll ask it again.
>> All right. to the officer. Officer
Baggley, um you were you saw this
screwdriver you're describing on
September 10th, 2025. Is that correct?
>> Yes.
>> Is states exhibit 3.1 a fair and
accurate uh depiction of that
screwdriver that day, September 10th,
2025?
>> Yes.
>> All right. They moves to admit. I will
go ahead and admit states exhibit 3.1 is
admitted based off the firsthand
knowledge of this uh what this image
purports to be and it is a fair and
accurate representation
as uh this item on that date of
September 10th 2025 and this exhibit may
be published. Your honor, before we
continue to publish it and ask a few
more questions, right now might be a
good time to take a break.
>> All right, if that's okay with the
court.
>> All right, let's come back at it's
10:43. Let's go ahead and come back.
Well, 10:44. Let's come back at 11:00
and then we'll resume direct
examination. Court is in a brief recess.
>> All right.
>> Worth going on about exhibits. I saw
some reports saying that, you know, they
weren't going to show any of the
evidence, but actually that was a motion
or that was a move made by the defense,
not the state. The state is moving to
show them all, but the defense has a
concern about those being displayed or
published, quote unquote, published
before they've been admitted as
evidence. So, that's the back and forth
uh going on there. Uh, which is which is
interesting. I do have some notes on
that that it's uh the hearing started
with arguments over publishing of
evidence beyond the courtroom per the
defense request. This u per the defense
the state wants evidence published.
Defense doesn't want anything to be
public especially prior to the judge
admitting his evidence. So that's the
central tension there. Um, I believe
we've pulled some of the key clips that
we will be able to replay
um on the other side of our break. Um,
how are we doing on clock, guys?
We're going through the clock. All
right. Well, I could have used a break
to kind of pull those clips, too. That's
another option. Um, we've got uh Jay
Town, former uh prosecutor that is uh
going to be joining us in just a second.
And um we also have um which I think is
a very important guest. We have uh
Austin Metaf's father and that's Jeff
Metaf. He's going to be joining us. Uh,
I I just I reached out to him because
there's very few people that could
understand the torment that Erica Kirk
and Rob and Katherine Charlie's parents
are are experiencing right now just
having to be in the in the courtroom
with Tyler Robinson. I can only imagine
the agony that they are currently
experiencing. So, um, please pray for
Erica, pray for Rob and Katherine, uh,
pray for the whole team. uh the the
larger team that's uh in Utah today. Um
and it is true uh Don Jr. is in the
courtroom uh by Erica, Rob, and
Katherine's side uh standing in
solidarity with them. So, we appreciate
uh Dawn uh for doing that. Uh Blake, any
thoughts? I got to I'm going to pull
something together here.
>> I mean, we just we told you last week
we're committed to seeing this process
through from beginning to end. So, we
know this is a little unusual from our
normal show, but it's exactly what we
want to be doing in this moment. We want
to There's been so many false claims
about this process online. There's been
so many there's been so much, I think,
agitation because people have been
waiting for this. They want to see the
process of justice play out. And because
it was there was so many delays, a lot
of other stuff intruded. And we're so
glad we're finally at this point where
we're seeing witnesses come up. We're
seeing people talk about it. and we're
committed to showing every minute of it
that we're able to.
>> Yeah. Um, so the we got, like I said,
we've got Jade Town and we've got uh
Austin Metaf's father. Um, yeah. So,
this is interesting, too. So, there was
a you just heard the last witness before
they took the break is actually a UVU
police officer. I'm I'm not sure uh his
name presently, but essentially he said
he heard a shot and then he was c he was
asked what kind of shot. He said it was
a it sounded like a rifle because it was
louder. Um he he seemed to be familiar
with the type of shot. So, you know, the
internet's going to be full of all these
alternate theories. Here's the police
officer that was on duty that day
saying, "I heard a rifle shot." Um
here we go. Um,
so yeah, the defense attempted to object
to entering the first exhibit, a photo
of the courtyard in for publication. The
state of Utah said, in this photograph a
fair is is is this photograph a fair and
accurate depiction of the area of UVU
campus on September 10, 2025. Defense,
your honor, we would object um to
inability to inauthenticate. There's not
been a foundation laid that this officer
took this photo. can verify when it was
taken or by whom it was taken. So, we
would object. So, this is the sort of
back and forth that is going to play out
over the next couple of days. Um, we are
being sort of warned that this is going
to be typical that, you know, they're
going to present evidence, there's going
to be objections. It all is very
procedural.
Um, and I mean, I don't know, there
there hasn't been a whole heck of a lot
presented yet, but
>> there hasn't. There was a mention of
meth that I'm trying to get uh I'm
trying to get clarity on. Oh, also uh
Judge Graph has entered in a picture for
evidence of the screwdriver found by
officer Baggley. So that's his name into
the record. I will go ahead and admit.
So that was a direct quote from Judge
Graph. So that was the the officer that
heard the the rifle shot, Officer
Baggley. He apparently was the one that
discovered the screwdriver on top of the
building
>> building allegedly used for assembling
disassembling the the rifle.
>> Yeah. Um
and I I you know I know there's some
controversy over assembling or
disassembling. So we'll we'll hold on
that and not make any judgments until
the uh evidence is presented in court.
Um so that's about where we're at right
now. Um you know, we weren't expecting
uh Oh, we have Jay on the phone right
now.
All right, Jay Town,
are you there?
>> I I am here. I'm here. So, sorry we
weren't able to do video today, but uh
but that's okay. It's better they're
they're staring at you anyway.
>> No, no, that's great. I I appreciate it,
Jay. I know we've been It's very
difficult to kind of predict the clock
uh for this uh hearing. they keep kind
of suggesting they're going to have a
break at one time and then it either
goes long or they get delayed on the
first uh you know the first marker and
so then everything that the timeline is
shifting but I guess that's what we have
to expect this week. All right. So, Jay,
you have been uh monitoring this uh
hearing, right? Uh very very closely.
You're a career prosecutor. You're a
former US attorney. Tell us what you
have observed from this hearing thus
far.
>> Well, a couple of things. One, from the
prosecution perspective, they've been
very meticulous. Uh, you know, anytime
you put a witness on, uh, especially a
professional like a police officer,
which my understanding is there's going
to be four police officers who testify
to probably 40 or 50 different exhibits.
And you're going to go through their
experience. You're going to go through
um, you know, where they were on that
day and then they're going to start to
really really narrow the focus about
everything that they saw that is
relative to the crime. you mentioned, I
heard a rifle shot. And how do you why
do you say that? Well, because a a a
pistol, a firearm, they make different
noises. And you can tell a pistol shot
from a 306. And so, um, that was, I
think, you know, pretty pretty
interesting considering some of the
tinfoil hat crowd out there, right? Uh
but at the same time uh the defense
council is going to make this as
laborious as possible. There are no
rules of evidence in a preliminary
hearing. Yet they've objected to every
single object uh uh uh exhibit thus far
based on like foundation. Now, let me
just say for for everybody, if you know
your daughter uh or a friend takes
picture of your backyard, just because
you didn't take the picture on that day,
and maybe you weren't even in the
country on the day that picture was
taken, you can still authenticate a
picture of your backyard as a fair and
accurate depiction of your backyard. And
that's all he was asking the officers to
do. Frankly, I've had Google Earth
images authenticated by police officers
or by the the owner of the wherever um
that the Google Earth was depicting. So,
uh defense is going to make this
laborious. The the the thing about that
is if they do that in front of a jury, a
jury will hate them because they are
just dragging it on, just making it hard
uh unnecessarily because all the
objections are overruled and then the
evidence comes anyway. So, we we just
wasted another 20 minutes because you
guys wanted to jump up for some
preservation of the record uh objection
that was meaningless.
>> Yeah. And so, you think that this is
just a preliminary trial tactic then,
Jay, that they will Do you think that
>> it could?
I mean, it could be uh you know, but
typically you just wouldn't, you know,
your your prelim hearing tactic and your
trial tactic, they're about the same
thing. And if we're, you know, if if if
you know, history is any indicator,
they've objected to everything. They've
been a very ligious defense group. And
so I don't know that they're not going
to object to everything on the record,
build a record because they know, here's
the thing. The reason you do that, the
reason why you look scared is because
you are scared because you know there is
overwhelming evidence against your
client. And the only way to save his
life is to hope for an appeal, an
appellet court somewhere that says, you
know what, that judge shouldn't have
overruled that. It should have been
sustained and and yada yada. and
therefore you got to have a new trial.
Well, okay. Well, we're just going to
take a plea deal now because it's 15
years from now and some of the witnesses
are dead or or don't remember. It's just
an old case. Um and uh and that's the
hope. That's the tactic. I've seen it
done over and over again. There's
nothing new here. The evidence is
overwhelming against Tyler
is in the indictment, right? I mean,
just the but the evidence itself and we
haven't even heard uh from uh you know
the the lover and and uh and the parents
from Tyler Robinson where admissions
were likely made by Tyler Robinson.
>> Uh yeah, that's that's interesting. I
mean, we've got an exhibit I mean
they're they're uh they they've got a a
list, right, of exhibits that they're
planning on, right? So, we've got the a
drone image of UBU, photo of the
screwdriver, daytime photo of sniper
perch, uh photo of sniper purge, photo,
um video of mother with children in
crowd, written statement, video of
shooting from behind the questioner,
written statement, video of shooting
from behind Charlie Kirk, written
statement, video of shooting from behind
the booth, uh photo of the rifle in the
bushes, photo of the rifle in the
bushes, photo of rifle in box, medical
examiner report, UVU surveillance,
um, doorbell camera, and then they've
got recorded statement from Lance Twigs.
So, I mean, there's a ton here. You
know, Jay, it begs a question because I
saw some people mentioning this on
social media. um you know, other lawyers
kind of chiming in. And I don't know if
this is specific to Utah law, but there
was some people that were sort of
saying, I'm surprised they didn't wave
the preliminary that the defense didn't
wave the preliminary hearing. What What
do you make of that? Is that even an
option in the state of Utah, first of
all, and uh what and assuming that they
had a choice one way or the other, can
you surmise tactics from either
decision?
Well, I am uh I am surprised uh frankly
that they didn't wave the preliminary
hearing. Uh the prosecutor said that
they have received that the defense
council has received every piece of
evidence. So, it's not like they're just
wondering, is there any evidence against
Tyler Robinson? They've received it all.
They know that the evidence is
overwhelming. So, why air it all this
week when there's no not even any rules
of evidence, right? So, anything that
might be inadmissible is not
inadmissible this week. And what's
happening is the world is watching.
People are hearing the evidence against
Tyler Robinson. No longer will defense
council be able to hide against the
tinfoil hat crowd and and and hope that
they can draw some of those jurors uh
for the actual jury trial because there
won't be any legs for the tinfoil hat
crowd to stand on because it will be so
overwhelming. the admissions, the the
ballistics reports, the fingerprints,
the DNA, um some of the ev other
evidence that uh likely exists that
hasn't even been commented on yet. Um
and and so
wave it. The only I mean it's not like
that's the other thing is that it's not
like this is going to be sworn testimony
from eyewitnesses uh where they said
they saw a a small dog one day and then
on the stand they say they saw a puppy
and they try to make reasonable doubt
out of that. The hearsay is admissible.
So uh you know the officers when they're
having these conversations with other
people and they testify about those
conversations that would be hearsay at
trial. Um, so there's really no ability
to appeach on that hearsay because it
won't even be admissible at trial. You
have to actually call the witness. So
again, this is just a I don't know that
this defense team is uh is the dream
team. That's that's kind of the
conclusion I'm reaching at the moment.
>> H any thoughts, but uh it's just I I've
been expressing all this bafflement to
people that it seems every time there's
a famous trial, the rules are totally
different. We obviously have 50 states,
but it's all just uh very overwhelming.
So, we're very grateful to have you
here, someone who's experienced uh to
walk us through this. Um a thought I've
had. I know they say they plan for this
to take about the week. It's going to be
full days other than Wednesday they have
a half day. Is there any chance this
ends surprisingly early or goes
surprisingly long? Could this go into
the next week
>> with this defense team? It's possible.
Well, I mean, the prosecution really, if
if the judge, you know, allows things to
move along, the prosecution really
should be done today. Um, most of the
stuff is just being entered like the
medical exam. I mean, they have to prove
that Charlie Kirk did in fact die. Um,
and that he died from a gunshot wound uh
and that it was deemed a homicide by the
am. Uh, so those I mean those are all
just sort of admitted proforma. Uh, a
lot of these exhibits will be admitted
proform. So, they should be done today,
maybe first thing in the morning. Uh,
but this defense team that for some
reason they want to drag their client
through uh and uh let the whole world
see just how guilty he is and, you know,
maybe poison the jury pool. Maybe that's
the only tactic that makes sense here is
that they're trying to make guard deer
so hard uh because everybody has seen
such overwhelming evidence of Tyler
Robinson's guilt.
>> Well, so you say they could get it all
done today. So, for example, the Lance
Twigs statement that they have that they
can't cross-examine, but are we going to
hear the whole statement? Are they going
to give a summary of the statement? Are
they just going to state
>> show the video? we have this and you
know we'll get
>> video it's a video interview that they
did with them. So I would presume Jay
that they're going to show the whole
thing, right?
>> Or at least they're going to show the
video.
>> They they are or at least play the audio
of it if the judge doesn't want to to
show it, which is that's fine. Uh if I'm
the state at this point, every piece of
evidence I'm putting in because you guys
are making me go through this ridiculous
process. You know what your client did.
So does he. But you want to go through
it, fine. I am going to paint the most
guilty person that the that ever lived
uh for the whole world to to see and
behold. Uh so I'm I'm not pulling
punches if I'm the prosecution at this
point. You're going to make me waste a
week on this? Fine. Guess what? Your guy
is going to look like the most guilty
person that ever lived. And he is. So go
ahead, state of Utah.
>> Yeah. Interesting. So you think the
tactics here then? Uh, and and maybe I'm
reading into what you said, Jay, is
that, you know, they're gonna they're
going to make this laborious, they're
going to make make it as painful as
possible,
uh, maybe either, you know, just to keep
keep pushing the psychology, uh, maybe
taint the jury pool. Is it Do you think
that there's a tactic here where they're
trying to get the evidence out? Um, so
that because the internet does what the
internet does with this stuff and the
tinfoil out crowd as you as you call
them. Are they banking on that? Do you
think
>> it could be? I mean, they could just be
banking on breaking the will of the
prosecution that they just don't have it
in them, the energy to fight uh for the
Kirk family, for Charlie Kirk. Um, and
that very well could be that they that
they think that um, you know, maybe
they'll just give up and give him life
without parole.
>> I don't think that's going to happen.
Yeah. Uh,
>> I it better not happen. Yeah.
>> But but that I mean you look all these
strategies are losers, guys. That's the
thing you got to remember from the
defense perspective, the defense lawyers
perspective, everything they do is going
to cause a a loss, right? their guy is
gonna is gonna be found guilty and
likely sentenced to death. So, if that's
the case, then I mean, what strategy
isn't worth trying, right?
>> Huh.
>> That's a really I think that's a really
interesting point.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. When you when you sort of like
don't have the evidence on your side and
there's not a whole lot of outs, you're
just kind of throwing stuff at the wall
to see if you could get the judge to
>> do something that could trigger a
or get it reversible on appeal. I find
that like a really interesting
psychology for the defense to be honest.
>> People keep speculating that the defense
might
be hoping on can we get a a weirdo on
the jury who's just going to who'd be
open to thinking Israel did this, the
Trump administration did this. I imagine
it's basically malpractice for the
lawyer to openly play to that and they
don't want to end up getting disbarred.
But it would that be in the back of
their heads that the longer we drag this
out, the cra the more crazy people there
will be and that could improve our odds
of a mistrial.
>> Well, perhaps. I mean, you do broaden
the pool. The longer the crazies get to
run around on the internet, then the the
more crazies there might be. But look,
the the the prosecution is going to have
a team of people scrubbing social media,
uh scrubbing chat rooms, everything they
can get their handle uh hands on to to
to be looking for anything as it relates
to Charlie Kirk. And there are 12 people
in the state of Utah that haven't formed
an opinion about Tyler Robinson's guilt,
but also don't subscribe to the uh the
tinfoil hat crowd, I guess, as I as I'm
going to continue to call them. uh
because you know, I mean, they can be
fair-minded, open-minded. Uh they have
to be able to subscribe to the death
penalty. That'll be difficult in the
state of Utah as well. Uh very
conservative, very religious state. Uh
but here in great state Alabama, uh you
know, we we do it on the regular. And u
you know, some people uh can get past it
because justice is important. So, uh
again, the defense council, they're
going to try every single tactic.
They're going to try to break the will
of the prosecution and that ain't gonna
happen.
>> Yeah. I don't really see I mean when
when you've got this much evidence,
right, Jay, you you would think that the
prosecution is sort of willing to go
through brick walls if they have to, you
know, all these objections, all this
procedural stuff. I mean, I I can't uh I
can't imagine that they um that they
would be cowed by that. Uh, we do have
this clip getting loaded right here and
I think it's worth playing back, Jay,
and get your reaction to. It's a longer
clip, so if you bear with me, but this
is the moment where uh UVU police
officer Chris Bagley describes the sound
of the rifle and what he saw and did in
the immediate aftermath. Um, and the
team, it's it's uh it's loading, but uh
we will have that for you in just a
second, I believe. Right, team? And it's
it's just a long clip. Bear with us. But
I think this is kind of one of the
central pieces.
Okay, it's ready. Let's go ahead and
play it. Jake, can you hang there just
right now while while we play this? It's
a longer clip. Bear with us, audience.
But this is the way the court works. Sot
19.
>> You mentioned So you mentioned you heard
something. What did you hear again?
>> I heard a gunshot.
>> Okay. And can you describe the re You
described Mr. Kirk's reaction. Was that
simultaneous to hearing the the gunshot?
>> Yes, it was.
>> When he fell to the left?
>> Yes. Did you see the reaction from the
crowd?
>> Yes.
>> What was that?
>> Everybody kind of got up. They all said
a lot of people were screaming, standing
up, and starting to run in all different
directions away from the center of the
tent.
>> Okay. You're a police officer,
>> helping to secure the area, correct?
>> Yes.
>> What did you do?
>> Um, at that moment, I recognized it as
gunfire. I uh I left my post, which was
right there on the south end of the Hall
of Flags. I
>> uh Jay, I apologize. I guess the uh the
hearing is coming back and uh do is is
it already up, guys?
All right, so we're going to go back to
the hearing. Jay Town, thank you so much
for for joining.
>> Uh we're going to be in close contact
this week, my friend. Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
>> You got it. Thank you.
>> Let's go ahead and take uh take the
court hearing. representatives are
entitled to be treated with uh dignity
and respect that if they choose to leave
the courtroom, they're they can come
back uh whenever they wish. They're not
prohibited to coming back solely at the
break. So, I just wanted to clarify that
uh in case there was any question about
that.
In addition, uh
I want to
talk about the exhibits uh as it relates
to their admission and and publica
publication of the exhibit. So whenever
there is an objection to an exhibit, uh
I would ask that the attorneys are clear
specifically what they're objecting to.
Uh there's there's basically three
levels uh of objections that could be
objected to. First the admittance of the
exhibit itself. Second is the
publication of the exhibit to the
gallery and third is the uh the
publication which uh is electronically
captured by the media. So council I'll
leave it to you um in regards to what
you object to or what you what you wish
to respond to. If no objection uh to the
publication media capture of the exhibit
is specifically raised, the court will
presume there's no objection. So being
that the uh monitor was introduced today
by the court, I wanted to offer that
guidance to the parties in regards to
your uh objections. With that, let's go
ahead and return to the witnesses. I do
note for the record that the council is
present uh and all the parties are
present and let's go ahead and proceed.
Mr. Gernander.
>> Thank you, your honor. Uh we left
officer Baggley with just having
admitted states exhibit 3.1. I believe
the court also granted our uh motion to
publish 3.1. So we would move we would
ask the court to publish that to the
gallery 3.1.
>> Any to the Ms. Netor any thoughts? My
honor.
>> All right, we'll go ahead and publish
exhibit 3.1.
Looks like it's just taking a second to
come up on the screen.
>> Let's go ahead and unplug and replplug
in the monitor to see if that brings it
back to life
to display.
All
right. Looks like it's
Noticing a flicker on my screen here.
>> Hands up.
>> All right.
>> Yes.
>> All right, Mr. Gander. Thank you, Judge.
Officer Bagley. So, you testified that
this is the screwdriver as you saw it on
September 10th, 2025. Correct.
>> Yes.
>> Um, I'm going to uh
And this was on top of which roof?
>> Loy building.
>> And in relationship to the entrance, the
the stairway and when you hopped over
the rail to get there,
>> where was it located?
>> About 10 or 15 ft in.
>> Okay. If I could um your honor, bring up
states exhibit number two that was
previously admitted. I would like to
have um Officer Bagley come down from
the witness stand and point on that
exhibit where approximately where this
screwdriver was located and describe it
for the record.
>> All right, you may step down and if you
have a microphone for him as well.
>> I think there was one up there. Oh, here
we go.
So, if you can describe where you where
you saw that screwdriver point to that.
>> Yeah. So, this is the Losi building
right here with the light gray. Here's
the guardrail in the center of the
picture with the red brick just over
that about 10 15 ft in about right
there.
>> About right there. Okay. Now, on this
exhibit, exhibit 3.1, there's an
evidence tag, yellow number five. Was
that present when you found the
screwdriver?
>> No.
>> Okay. So that was left there by an
evidence tech.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Officer, I'm going to uh direct your
attention to your monitor again and have
you look at states exhibit 3.2.
And if you'll let me know when you see
that.
Okay, I see it.
>> Okay. And can you tell us what that is?
>> Uh, yes. That's a picture of the top of
the Losi building looking west.
>> Okay. And how do you know that that is
in fact the top of Losi center looking
west?
>> I can see the landmarks of several
buildings that the Fugal buildings on
the top left of it. You've got on the
right is a white roof which is the
Sorenson building on the right side of
the picture. Uh, this is also the gravel
area on top of the Ly building.
>> Okay. Um,
can you see the courtyard from this
exhibit?
>> Yes, a little bit.
>> Um, what about the tent that was set up
that Mr. Kirk was underneath?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. What about the Hall of Flags?
>> Yes.
>> Um,
did you mention that this was facing
west? What What direction are we
looking?
>> We're looking west towards Utah Lake.
>> Okay. Officer, is this a fair and
accurate um depiction of what you
observed on September 10th, 2025 on top
of the Losi building?
>> Yes.
>> State offers states exhibit 3.2. Judge
>> Miss Nester,
>> your honor, I think that we renew our
standing objection. Um there is an
evidence tag here which begs the
question that it's not a fair and
accurate representation of how he saw
it. Um, and we also don't have any
indication about when this picture was
taken or by whom. So, we object to its
admission.
>> I see. Thank you, Mr. Granader.
>> Officer, one one more question, Judge.
Officer Bagley, apart from the evidence
tag, do you see an evidence tag on that
photograph?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Was that present when you were on top of
the Losi Center and has observed this?
>> That was not.
>> Okay. Otherwise, is it fair and
accurate?
>> Yes.
>> State moves to admit.
>> Anything further?
>> No, your honor.
>> All right. Thank you. Given that
follow-up question, noting that the
evidence tag, it appears to be number
two uh on stage exhibit 3.2 was not
present, but otherwise it is a fair and
accurate representation as stated by the
witness uh to uh stage exhibit 3.2. the
court will uh admit it into evidence and
it may be published at the discretion of
or the request of councel.
Your own state would move to publish it.
>> All right.
>> Officer Bagley, will you describe um
what it is that we're looking at here?
>> Uh yes. on on the top of the photo. Uh
you got the mountain range on the back.
That's going to be looking west. You
also have Utah Lake which is towards the
top of it. As you come down towards the
center on the top, you've got a pond
which is the ponds over at Utah Valley
University. I've come down from that
from where the water meets that red
baked part. More towards the center is
the Hall of Flags. And just below that,
where you can see the grass and the
white tent is where Charlie Kirk was
sitting looking west. And we're on top
of the Losi building.
>> And is this is this depicting a
particular corner of the Losi rooftop?
>> Yes, it is.
>> And this is the top rooftop.
>> Yes.
>> Um is it the same level where we
observed the atrium that's to the north?
>> Uh the atrium's up just a little bit
higher. So this is level at the top of
level four.
>> Level four. Okay. And uh what what area
of the rooftop are we looking at here?
>> Uh you're looking
>> as far as the gravel
>> southwest side of the Liy building.
southwest side. Okay. Um
is there a line of sight down into the
courtyard?
>> Yes, there is
>> in that area. Okay. What else do you
observe on this um exhibit that's
significant to you, officer?
>> Uh there was some disturbance in the
gravel right where and around the area
where the in the area where the yellow
marker is is there was some disturbance
that caught my eye there.
>> Okay. And um does this photograph do it
justice?
>> No.
>> And how so?
>> Uh you can't really see the impression I
saw the time of when I was up there the
on that day. I saw a distinct impression
in the gravel and this does not show
that.
>> Okay. So you could see more with the
naked eye.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Um, I'm going to refer the witness to
States exhibit
4 on your monitor there
and let me know when you can see that.
>> Okay, I can see it.
>> And do you recognize that exhibit?
>> I do.
>> And what is that? This is a nighttime
view of that same photo uh that was just
last uh same view looking west and I can
see the disturbance in the gravel.
>> And what tells you that this is uh the
same photograph as the last one as
exhibit 3.2.
>> You can see the hall flags as direct
almost the top of the photo in the
middle. You got the hall flags. You can
see the tent in the grass area, the
direct line of sight with the Sorson
building, and I'm on top of the gravel
of the Losi building, southwest side. Is
there also an LDS temple that's depicted
in that photograph?
>> There is. It's going to be on the top
left of the photo is lit up.
>> Okay. Um,
do you know who took this photo?
>> I do.
>> And who took this photo?
>> Melissa Richards.
>> And um, who is Melissa Richards? Uh
she's the lead senior uh forensic
for forensic for the state of Utah.
>> Okay.
>> Examiner.
>> And um
how do you know that she took this
photograph?
>> I I spoke to her.
>> Okay.
Um
>> just renew the objection to hearsay.
That's an outstanding objection.
>> Thank you. Mr. Grunander, do you want to
respond to the objection about hearsay?
>> Um yes, judge. Under rule 1102, hearsay
is admissible to establish the
foundation or for or the authenticity of
any exhibit that's found in 1102
subb
sub3.
Um I would also point out for the court
that under rule 1101
which is the applicability of the rules
um in uh subsection C1
uh the determination of questions of
fact preliminary to ad admissibility of
evidence when it's determined under rule
104 which are preliminary questions um
the the rules of evidence do not apply.
Uh 104 speaks directly to providing
laying foundation for an exhibit. So
even at trial, hearsay is admissible to
establish the foundation of an exhibit.
I would also just point the court um to
state v. Griffin. This is a 2016 Utah
Supreme Court case.
Um
the citation is 384 Pacific 31 186 which
stands for hearsay evidence is
admissible to establish the foundation
of an exhibit even at trial. And we're
at a preliminary hearing today, judge.
>> All right. Anything further, Miss
Nester, before I issue a ruling?
>> No, your honor.
>> All right.
I'm going to overrule the uh the
objection to hearsay. Uh I note that the
standing objection by defense. Uh I also
note rule 1102. And I also look to
article 1, section 12 of the Utah
Constitution,
which states, "Nothing in this
constitution shall preclude the use of
reliable hearsay evidence as defined by
statute or rule in whole or in part at
any preliminary examination to determine
probable cause or at any pre-trial
proceeding with respect to release of
defendant if appropriate discovery is
allowed as defined by statute or rule.
For those reasons, um, I'm going to
overrule the objection and as it relates
to reliable hearsay in this instance,
uh, you may proceed.
Officer Bagley, did you ask Miss
Richards if this was a fair and accurate
depiction of this scene on the Los Loi
building on the night of September 10th,
2025?
>> Yes.
>> And what did she tell you?
>> She said it was.
>> Okay. Your the state offers states
exhibit four.
Miss Nester
>> just object to relying on what Ms.
Richards told him in terms of creating
the foundation and refer back to our
standing objection.
>> The state will submit it.
>> All right. Well, as I look at states
exhibit 4 and again I'm just looking at
it before me. I I it said it was a fair
and accurate representation.
Um there's there's a notation I mean in
the previous exhibits there's a marker
exhibit marker and I see two but it also
appears to be other artifacts on this
image that I haven't heard uh any
testimony about and and so I will follow
up judge.
>> All right
officer Bagley, do you see an evidence
tag in that exhibit?
>> Yes, I do. A number two.
>> A number two and that's yellow and
black.
>> Yes.
>> Do you see other um evidence markers
that are red in color? Uh yes, they are
to me they're orange but they're
triangular shaped.
>> Okay. Um were those markers the evidence
tag two as well as the orange or red
markers present when you uh observed
that scene that day?
>> No.
>> Okay. Um were they present however when
Ms. Richards took this photograph?
>> Yes.
>> And she indicated to you that that is a
fair and accurate representation of what
she observed that night?
>> Yes. State would move to admit exhibit
four. Judge
>> Miss Nester,
>> objections, your honor.
>> Thank you, Miss Nester. I'm going to go
ahead and overrule the objection. Uh
noting that the marker, evidence marker,
as well as the red or orange markers, I
can't tell which color it is. Uh was not
present originally. With those uh
included information, states exhibit 4
is admitted into evidence and may be
published
Thank you. The state would move to
publish that.
>> All right.
And I would ask for the witness to come
down to uh explain the exhibit.
>> All right. Officer, if you'd like to
step down, use the microphone and as
previously noted, uh describe when
you're describing something on the image
where it is located on the image for the
benefit of our recording.
So officer, will you describe for the
court what it is that you're looking at?
Uh
>> so what I'm looking at is I'm on top of
the Losi building which is where the
gravel is on towards the bottom center.
I'm looking west uh towards the tent
which is in the upper center that you
got a white tent. You can see the grass
down there in the amphitheater. You got
the Hall of Flags that's more towards
the top center and behind that you've
got I-15.
But what I'm looking at is in the
disturbance of the gravel is what I saw
that day.
>> Okay. And what can you describe for the
record that disturbance?
>> To me, when I when I got up there and I
could see this disturbance of gravel, um
to me, it looks like a a sniper pad, a
person that has been laying in a prone
position, and you've got markings of
elbows, knees, and feet to where
somebody was in the line of sight of
where Charlie's tent was.
>> Thank you.
And if we could again take the uh
if we could publish states exhibit
number two.
>> You recognize that right officer?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Where on the Losi rooftop did you
observe this disturbance in the gravel?
If you go to the center of the picture,
if you go to the center of the picture
in the darker gray part of it, um on the
left side, so the south side of the Losi
building, it would be right in the line
of sight of the Charlie Kirk tent that's
straight in front of it.
>> Okay.
>> Well, the southwest side of the roof.
>> Thank you. You can take your seat.
And finally, I would direct the
witness's attention to st exhibit number
five on the monitor.
>> Let me know when that's there.
>> It is.
>> Is it is it is there?
>> Do you recognize that exhibit?
>> I do.
>> And what is that? This is going to be a
picture of the side profile of that last
photo we looked at with some red or
orange markers and a number two with
also a tape that's there
>> on top of the Losi building.
>> What was that tape that you said?
>> Uh there's a measuring tape it looks
like.
>> Okay. Um are you able to tell which
direction the photograph is the
photographer was facing?
>> Yes.
>> And what direction is that?
>> It's facing south.
Um, this is a nighttime photograph,
correct?
>> Yes.
>> Um,
do you know who took this picture?
>> I do.
>> And who took the picture?
>> It was Moses Richards.
>> The same individual that you spoke about
before?
>> Yes.
>> Um, did you ask her whether this is a
fair and accurate depiction of what she
observed that night?
>> Yes.
>> What did she say?
>> She said it was. with respect to what
you observed that day. Um, apart from
the evidence tag, the the yellow tag as
well as the orange or red markers, is
this a fair and accurate depiction of
what you observed?
>> Yes.
>> What's different about what you observed
as far as what's on the photograph, the
previous exhibit compared to this?
>> Uh, you can see more of the length of an
individual. So you can see that more
there's two elbows, two knee areas, plus
also towards the far right of the photo
is also a marker where like somebody
laid a gun down.
>> Okay.
>> It's like a prone position.
>> Your honor, pursuant to rule 1102 as
well as other authority that's been
cited today, the state offers states
exhibit 5 into evidence.
>> Your honor, we renew all the same
objections we made to exhibit 4.
>> Thank you.
Given the foundation that has been laid
and that uh the witness has testified
that this is a fair and accurate
representation of the scene, noting uh
the tape as well as the markers in that
uh
states exhibit 5 is admitted into
evidence and may be published.
>> State move state moves to publish
exhibit five, judge.
>> All right.
before turning to what you did next on
that day, taking you to se back to the
daytime of September 10th, 2025,
um did you secure the rooftop of the
Losi building that day?
>> Yes, I did.
>> And how did you do that? I put yellow
police uh crime scene tape around the
portion where so nobody else would
disturb that area.
>> And when you say that area, what areas
are you talking about?
>> I'm talking about the roof where it was
the southwest side of the roof where I
found the disturbed gravel where it
looked like somebody had been proned out
in the line of sight of the tent. Um so
right there,
>> did you secure the area um as far as any
any of the entrance area up onto the
rooftop with with police tape?
>> Yes. So then where that natural
guardrail is, that was the other barrier
where they were advised not to go any
any further from there other than police
officers.
>> Okay. Um if we could go back to states
exhibit number two,
if we were to zoom in on this uh
photograph, are you able to see the
police tape that you put up on the
rooftop of the Losi Center officer?
>> Yes, you would be able to.
Kimberly, if we can zoom in,
officer, I'm going to have you come down
and describe for the court where you put
that police tape up to secure that
scene. the rooftop area
on the southwest corner of the rooftop.
So, this is the top of the LOC building.
You got your two different grays. Uh the
southwest is towards the top center of
the picture. Um you can see some yellow
tape that spans from over here on the
far right side of the picture by these
black uh pipes goes around a silver
vent, comes back down around to the
corner of that silver to keep everybody
out of that area where that prone
position was at.
>> Okay. On that photograph, are you able
to to see where you put the tape up as
far as the the access way to that roof
near the stairway?
>> So, it it was right here actually this
natural barrier where you have to climb
over the guardrail. So, this is the
other barrier that I have set up.
>> And you put police tape on that?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um, did you eventually leave that
area?
>> I did.
>> Do you recall about what time you left
that area?
>> Oh, I have it in my notes. Um, it would
be
when I left that area, it was almost
1:00, about 103, 101.
>> Okay.
>> Before leaving, did you uh leave the
scene with anyone?
>> I did not leave the scene. Or did I
leave the scene to somebody? Yes.
>> Just to someone else?
>> Yes.
>> And who was that?
>> Uh, it was a county deputy, a female.
Did you provide instructions to her?
>> I did.
>> And what were those instructions?
>> I advised her not to let anybody inside
the crime scene.
>> Okay.
>> Without without being a police officer
or an investigator.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. You can take your seat again.
Officer, upon seeing this disturbance in
the gravel, you've described what it
looked like to you.
>> Someone lying down in a prone position,
correct?
>> Yes.
>> What did you do next?
>> Um, so when I got to the top of the Losi
building during that day, I noticed the
screwdriver kept going to the edge,
found that prone position. At that
moment, I realized because it was direct
line of sight plus the disturbance in
the gravel where I could see somebody
laid down in a prone position or a
sniper position and um asked dispatch to
get on the vid to then I realized that
we probably didn't have our shooter in
custody from that moment. Um I asked
dispatch to get on the camera system and
to see if anybody was on top of the Losi
building during the time of the
incident.
>> Um were you advised of anything?
>> I was. dispatch came back and advised me
that there was a male individual on top
of the roof that
was there at the time of the shooting.
>> Did they describe what his movements
were?
>> They did. They stated that he ran to the
edge, dropped down, crawled, uh got in a
prone position. Um
>> I'm going to stop you right there. Ran
to the edge. What direction and what
edge?
>> Uh ran running west and southwest of the
Losi building. So ran towards the tent
where Charlie Creek was so they could
get a line of sight. Um and then the
individual stood up after the shooting
and ran northeast on the top of the Losi
building.
>> Okay. Um
you mentioned that this individual on
the the video dropped off
>> off the edge. Did you did you get that?
I haven't mentioned that.
>> What happened? What what else was
described to you?
>> Um then well at that moment so I knew
that there was possibly a shooter on on
the run. Your honor, can we just have a
continuing objection to all of the
hearsay that's being testified to here?
>> And judge, my response to that was I'm
not actually offering this for the truth
of the matter asserted at this point.
Um, simply for the effect on the hearer.
So, I'm not offering what's been
described in the video as substantive
evidence.
>> All right, Miss Nester, as with that
clarification, any thoughts?
>> I'll just stand on the objection. I
don't I don't think I mean he's clearly
offering it for the truth because he's
asking him to describe the route of the
individual and it's based on what other
people told him. So if he wants to
circle back to it after he's put the
video in, I mean we could do that but
right now I still think it's
inappropriate hearsay. Your honor.
>> All right. Anything further, Mr.
>> I'll submit it to the court.
>> All right. So as the magistrate, as this
is not to a jury, it's to myself as a
magistrate. I am not accepting that
statement for the truth of the matter
asserted simply for uh what has been
stated. So uh I'm I'm specifically
making that finding as I'm receiving
this evidence and I'm not accepting it
for the truth of matter asserted only as
represented by Mr. Grunander. And with
that the objection is overruled. Mr.
Grander, you may proceed.
>> Thank you judge. Um so you mentioned um
you were provided with information that
an individual was running north on the
Losi rooftop. Correct.
>> Yes.
>> What else was described to you?
>> Um at that moment I actually there I
knew I had responding units coming into
the the scene. I advised other officers
that I needed the Losi building secured
search because I didn't know exactly
what way that other than he ran north.
Uh that moment I went down to the police
department which is just down the
stairwell and looked at the video
myself. And
>> where is the police department located?
>> It's in the Gunther trade building just
directly to the south of the Losi
building.
>> Okay.
>> So where I described those outside
stairs, the building to the left of that
or south would be the Gunther Trade
Building.
>> Okay. What on what level is the police
department?
>> Uh it's level three.
>> Level three. Okay. Upon arriving at the
police department, what did you do next
then? I then look at the footage to
verify for myself exactly
what expired on that moment where I
could see an individual run to the edge,
get up and then run off and then drop
off the northeast side of the building
of the Losi building.
>> Okay.
Having uh viewed that, what did you do
next?
>> Uh at that moment, I realized I had more
more crime uh a bigger crime scene that
I needed to contain and preserve for
evidence. Uh at that moment I went and
grabbed some more crime scene tape and I
responded to the northeast side of the
building and secured an area where I saw
impressions of the shoe print inside the
grass and also up above on that
northeast side of the building. I could
see on the cement where some had scuffed
there and then drop down to the shoe
imprint and then finish going northeast.
>> Okay. Um, if I can take the witness back
to States exhibit two.
>> Uh, you mentioned seeing uh an
individual drop down. Could you come
down and point that area out to the
court?
>> Yes.
Okay, this is the Losi building again on
the top right center of the photo. Uh
southwest side is where the individual
was laying down prone in the line of
sight. Came behind the aquarium or
>> atrium
>> atrium came behind that on the west side
of it. came up to the north side of the
Losi building on the east on this white
square piece on the far right of the
picture. Um, and then he dropped off on
the east side of the Losi building into
the grass down here below.
>> So, the northeast corner.
>> Yes, northeast corner.
>> You mentioned you observed something on
the grass.
>> I did. I saw a shoe imprint that was
embedded pretty deep right there next to
where he dropped off.
>> And this is all footage that you
personally observed
>> on the surveillance video.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. When you got to the scene,
describe in as best detail as you can
what you saw on the grass then.
>> So, when I got to the scene, I could see
that there was a shoe imprint there.
When I looked up onto the cement from
the roof, I could see some scratching or
rub marks from the top of the of the
roof that was not there. I could see
that looked abnormal. Uh, I then decided
to put crime scene tape around the whole
area in case there was more evidence
that needed to be preserved.
>> On that, uh, exhibit number two, do you
see where you place the crime scene
tape?
>> Yes, I do.
>> And where is that? Can you describe that
to the court?
>> It's going to be on the far right in the
center of the picture. Uh, you can see
the yellow tape. I came around trees,
came up further out of pictures, some
more trees. that came down all the way
down to the back side of the LDS
Institute building where there's a
sidewalk to block everybody out of
coming up that way.
>> Okay. Did you at one point leave the
scene?
>> I did.
>> Um, did you release the scene to anyone?
>> Yes, I did.
>> And who was that?
>> Uh, there was two pacing police officers
that were standing there.
>> Okay. Were they in uniform?
>> They were.
>> Did you provide them with any
instructions?
>> I advised them not to let anybody inside
the crime scene other than law
enforcement or investigators.
>> Okay.
You can take your seat again. Officer
Bagley.
>> You've talked about the disturbance in
the gravel that was observed on the LC
building.
>> Yes.
>> Did you um walk through those that that
gra that disturbance in the gravel?
>> I did not.
>> Did you otherwise touch it in any way?
No.
>> Um, with respect to the uh shoe print
that you observed on the grass on the
northeast
lawn area below the Losi building, did
you walk through that?
>> I did not.
>> Did you otherwise disturb that?
>> No.
>> Officer Baggley, what did you do next?
Uh from that moment I then released the
scene. I went down to the Fugal building
and knew that where the instant command
center was at so I could relay
information that I'd found to responding
units and people in charge.
>> If I have just a moment, judge,
>> you may
state will pass the witness judge. All
right,
Miss Nester,
Miss Nester, before you begin, uh, what
time would you like to break for lunch?
for I I don't want to interrupt a line
of questioning and so I just want to
make sure that we're just taking a look
at the clock and when you feel is a good
time to break roughly in that 12 1210
range.
>> I will aim for that your honor. That
shouldn't be a problem.
>> Okay. Thank you. You may proceed.
>> May I please the court?
>> Yes.
>> Good afternoon or morning still.
>> Morning
>> officer Bagley. My name is Kathy Nester.
I'm one of the attorneys representing
Mr. Robinson today and I do have some
questions for you.
>> Okay. So, you mentioned that you checked
in around 11:00 a.m. on the day of the
shooting. Is that right?
>> Yes.
>> Um, did you know in advance there was
going to be this event on campus?
>> I did. I signed up for an overtime
shift. So, yes.
>> You
>> the special event. I signed up for the
overtime shift.
>> Got it. And so, did you attend any type
of debrief or briefing or meeting to
prepare for the security of this event?
I did not because that morning when I
got there, we had individuals on top of
the the Hall of Flags. So when I walked
in, I just checked on was going to get
my uniform on. Uh the chief Long got a
text or an email or phone call stating
that there's people on top of the Hall
of Flags throwing stuff down to the
tent. Therefore, he sent the two
officers that were on duty down to
secure the area. I got dressed and then
came back and then went to the Hall of
Flags to secure that area. So, you never
attended any kind of I'll just use the
word debrief or meeting to talk about
what the officers on scene were going to
do that day to keep everybody safe?
>> Uh, no, not that morning.
>> Do you know if there was such a meeting?
>> I don't know because when I got there it
was starting to people were throwing
stuff down on the tent.
>> And do you know how many uh UVU
officers you guys employ normally?
>> Employ was 15. And do you know how many
were assigned to cover that event that
day?
>> Uh that were assigned to cover it. There
was six of us that were there was patrol
one and then five others
>> that were there with the chief.
>> Did you all have an idea there were
going to be thousands and thousands of
people there or was that a surprise to
you?
>> Uh had a had an idea
>> and you only had five officers?
>> Six. Yes.
>> Six. I'm sorry. I'm counting you. I was
thinking
>> um and of those six officers were are
you all armed? Do you carry weapons?
>> Yes.
>> What type of weapons do you carry?
>> Glock pistols.
>> Okay.
And was there any use on campus of I
think they're called magnetometers, but
um
the machines you walk through at TSA in
the airport where it checks to see if
you're carrying any anything metal. What
we all had to go through to get in the
courtroom. Were there any machines like
that set up or being used on campus that
day?
>> No.
And as far as you know, were there any
drones that were flying above campus
that day?
>> Not that I know of.
>> And did anyone ever talk to you about
covering anything near or on top of or
in the Losi building? Were you ever
signed that area before the shooting?
>> No.
>> Do you know who was?
>> I don't.
And when you got up to the roof that
afternoon,
was anybody around? That was law
enforcement.
>> No.
>> Nobody on the roof?
>> No.
>> Nobody on the stairway?
>> Nope.
>> Nobody on the walkway?
>> Nope.
>> Okay.
And in the state of Utah, are is a
campus a gun-free zone? Are students
allowed to have guns on campus? It's an
open carry state. So, yes.
>> And did you see anybody that was armed
that day other than law enforcement?
>> I did not see.
>> Were you aware of whether Mr. Kirk had
his own security team present there with
him?
>> Yes. Did you communicate with any of
those people?
>> I saw one individuals that was on top of
the hall flags right next to me. Yes.
>> Okay. And that was before the shooting.
>> Yes. And then I saw several down in the
crowds and down by him. Yes.
>> And were you aware of whether that
person was armed either?
>> I was aware he was armed.
>> Okay.
Was there any other law enforcement
agency besides Mr. Kirk's private
security team and your six officers,
including you, um, that were covering
that event that day. In other words, did
you have any Provo police or ORM police
or anyone that you knew of or federal
agencies?
>> I don't know.
>> You never saw any that day?
>> No, not until the response came in.
>> And you did mention, I think I heard you
just a few minutes ago testify, you
turned over the scene on the roof to a
woman who was a deputy sheriff, right?
>> Yes. and that you turned over the scene
where the individual dropped off to I
believe you said um was it Orm Police?
>> PAC.
>> PAC police. Thank you. Those people
weren't there till after the shooting,
right? They were part of just a response
of everybody in the area.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Did you receive any type of briefing
materials, written materials prior to
the event that talked about who would be
covering what or anything like that?
>> Uh, no, not that morning. Like I said,
it started getting hectic. So, we were
trying to get down there, secure the
area, and push people away from the top
of the tent.
>> Now, when this event was over,
um, you prepared a report. Is that
right?
>> I did. And in the report, it covers a
lot of what you testified to with Mr.
Grander, doesn't it?
>> Yes.
>> And I think you said you attended what,
600 hours of post training.
>> It's around 600 hours. Yes.
>> And I'm sure somewhere in that training,
you were taught the importance of your
police report.
>> Yes.
>> And how it will be relied on years later
to recreate events like it's being done
right now.
>> And so, you know, it's really important
to be as accurate as possible in your
report.
>> Yep. Um, can we put up Bagley one?
>> Can we switch it over to the defense
table, please? Thank you so much.
>> And show it only to the witness. This is
>> all right.
Do you see that report in front of you?
>> I do.
>> And is that the report that you prepared
or did you prepare this report?
>> Uh I didn't I did a supplement on it but
I didn't prepare the report. So like
because the incident was a big agency
assist. So obviously it says
it has all the responding officers to
that effect.
>> Oh, we need to go to the page. Thank you
for pointing that out. Can we please
move to page um three or five maybe?
All right. Now, let me ask the question
again. Sorry, you just had the cover
sheet up. Is that your report?
>> Yes, this is.
>> All right. And did you prepare that?
>> I did.
>> When did you prepare this report?
>> Uh, it looks like
it was done
the next day. Either that day or the
next day, cuz I wanted to make sure that
I had it done. Everything was fresh on
my mind.
>> And do you have a copy of it in front of
you?
>> I do, as a matter of fact.
>> May I just step in and just make sure
that it's the same one? May I approach?
Your honor,
>> you may.
You're good.
When you this is we got to ask this now.
Did you use AI to help you prepare your
report?
>> I did not.
>> Okay, good. Um, when you prepared your
report, you you reference when you first
heard the shot, don't you?
>> Yes.
>> And what is the time that you say that
you heard the shot? uh 1223.
>> Right. And when you wrote that report,
you did not state in your report the
direction you heard that shot come from,
did you?
>> Uh, no, apparently not.
>> And take your time and look at the whole
report and see if there's anywhere in
there where you ever mentioned that it
came from the east or to your right.
I don't see his uh direction.
>> Okay. And you also, I believe in your
report,
um you also don't state whether or not
um
you don't mention anything about
thinking it came from the Losi building
or anything like that, right? uh later
on when I recognize where the when I see
all the empty holsters when I I think I
actually said that in there where I see
the empty holster that I realized the
line of sight.
>> Okay. So, let's talk about that holster
for a minute. Um so, you heard the shot
and did you only heard one shot,
correct?
>> Yes.
>> And then you came down from the walkway
above the um tent, right?
>> Yes. And you came down to really the
grassy area that we've all been looking
at, the courtyard.
>> Yes.
>> And there was kind of chaos, people
running around.
>> Yep.
>> Yes. And um while you were down there,
you saw what you said was an empty
holster.
>> Yeah. As I was clearing people out and
making sure that the evidence was
preserved uh about towards the top,
after a little bit, I saw an empty
holster sitting there.
>> And when you say towards the top, can
you be specific and tell us where you
were
>> there? So on the south side in the
courtyard there's some tears of seating
where the grass is different levels and
was towards the top maybe just right
before the cement is where everybody's
standing. So there's different levels is
towards the top on the grass.
>> And when you saw the holster, can you
describe to me what it looked like?
>> Uh an empty concealed holster
>> for what type of what?
>> A pistol.
>> Okay. And did it have any markings on
it?
>> I didn't even No, not that I noticed.
And what happened to that holster?
>> I have no idea.
>> Did you ever take custody of it?
>> Nope.
>> Did you ever tell anyone else to take
custody of it?
>> Nope.
>> You just left it on the grass?
>> I did.
>> Was it ever fingerprinted to your
knowledge?
>> I have no idea.
>> Okay.
At some point, um, there were drones in
the air. Is that right? Did you become
aware of that?
>> Yes, I was made aware of that.
>> Right. Do you know who put the drones in
the air?
>> Uh, Sergeant Cam Nelson with the Proval
Police Department.
>> Right. So, it wasn't UVU.
>> No.
>> Did you guys even have drone capability?
Did you have a drone on campus that you
used?
>> No.
>> All right.
So, someone would have had to bring one
after the shooting onto campus because
you wouldn't have had one there.
>> True.
>> All right.
You mentioned that as you were coming
down into the grassy area from the top
above the tent, you come down the hall
of flags. You come into the grassy area.
You mentioned that you heard, I guess,
on your radio that they had a suspect in
custody.
>> Yes.
>> And so, how long do you think between
the shop being fired did you hear that?
>> I was in, like I said, trying to get
down the stairs, jumping over people,
trying not to step on people as people
were fighting up. Within 30 seconds,
maybe.
>> Right. So, they pretty much instantly
had someone in custody.
>> Yes. And that's why I was quite quite
surprised.
Were you aware of where the person was
taken into custody?
>> Uh, right down by where Charlie Kirk was
sitting by his tent somewhere down
there. Right.
>> So, in the courtyard area, the person
would have been in the courtyard area at
the time of the shooting.
>> Yes.
>> Was that person in or near or around the
holster in any way?
>> Uh, no.
>> You don't know?
>> No, it he wasn't. where that holster was
was up on the top level up there and it
was for the when the incident happened
when when they when Charlie got shot. Uh
within seconds the other officer that
was down by him said that he was in
custody with a prisoner of the shooter.
So
>> within right there
>> you didn't um at that time it was your
understanding the person they took into
custody was close by Mr. Kirk. Is that
right?
>> Yep. But it didn't occur to you that
well that's not where I heard the shock
come from. They must have the wrong
person. I should talk to somebody.
>> During the chaos moment, no. That's they
said they had person in custody. I
figured those guys saw something I
didn't see. They took the person in
custody and I thought that was him.
>> Okay.
I actually I'm this would be a good
stopping place cuz I'm about to start
another section.
>> Okay.
>> So maybe we could go five minutes early
for lunch.
>> Absolutely. All right.
>> Thank you. Thank you, officer.
>> We're going to go ahead and break for
lunch. We'll come back at 1:00.
I do want to note for uh the camera
operator, if you would just be cognizant
and turn off the microphone during
breaks and when we break for recess. Uh
that would be helpful. Uh do does either
party need the benefit of the record
before we break for lunch? Not
>> all right, we are in recess.
All right.
All right, welcome back. Um, lots of
information there that was just uh gone
through and we had we see the defense
cross-examining officer Baggley. Um it,
you know, we hear about the sniper nest,
the impressions on the ground, uh how
officer Bagley, you know, first
experienced the noises, the sound of the
shot, um what he put in his police
report. Very procedural, uh very by the
book, everything feels very deliberate.
Um these are my general takeaways here.
I I don't I don't I don't see anything
that's surprising yet, but uh noteworthy
certainly.
>> I mean, you see it I I was messaging a
friend of mine. It's a little
remarkable. Obviously, it's such a
high-profile case. Then when you see
these police officers being asked, uh
what were you on campus for? Oh, there
was a guest speaker that day. Do you
know the name of that guest speaker?
Yes, I do. Who was? And they are really
they're laying that all out. But this
gets back to you want to make sure
everything is entirely by the book as
this goes through. Precisely because
it's so high-profile. Precisely because
there are people who will seize on
literally anything they possibly can to
we believe help the person we believe is
guilty escape.
>> Yeah.
>> Full culpability.
>> Yeah, you're right. It's the the the
sort of procedural nature of it is
fascinating to watch actually, you know.
So, you've got Officer Bagley. So, he
says, "Yeah, I signed up for an overtime
shift for this for this event." And the
way that they have the exhibits so that
they're not displayed publicly. Yeah,
this I think this is a a an interesting
clip to show just to kind of go through
the way that you know the step-by-step
process that has to be followed here
based on Jud Judge Graph's instructions.
So, he actually has to get off the
witness stand to go and point where he
found the screwdriver. So, you don't
actually get to see it, but he's off
camera pointing to it. Let's let's go
ahead and play it just as a good
example. S 23.
>> Go ahead and publish exhibit 3.1.
>> Officer Bagley. So, you testified that
this is the screwdriver as you saw it on
September 10th, 2025, correct?
>> Yes.
>> Um, I'm going to uh
And this was on top of which roof?
>> The loyalty building.
>> And in relationship to the entrance, the
the stairway and when you hopped over
the rail to get there,
>> where was it located?
>> About 10 or 15 feet in.
>> Okay. If I could um your honor, bring up
states exhibit number two that was
previously admitted. I would like to
have um officer Bagley come down from
the witness stand and point on that
exhibit where approximately where this
screwdriver was located. So if you can
describe where you where you saw that
screwdriver point to that.
>> Yeah. So this is the Losi building right
here with the light gray. Here's the
guardrail in the center of the picture
with the red brick just over that about
10 15 feet in about right there.
>> Thank you. You can take your seat again.
Um, so that was interesting. The other
the I think that's just a good example
of how he has to we have to navigate
these exhibits so that they're not
published. Um, just a quick uh
programming note for anybody watching on
the stream. Uh, we have Jet Metaf,
Austin Metaf's dad, uh, just about to
join us.
>> Um, and I know he's got some words of
encouragement for Erica. Um, you know,
uh, speaking of which, uh, there's an
interesting, uh, report here. I'll try
and get the graphic for everybody here.
This is a I've confirmed that this is
actually reporter inside the the
courtroom.
Um, here there there's uh, I guess this
is uh, let me get the name of this
reporter, senior national correspondent
for NewsNation, Brian Enton.
Um, if you could throw that graphic up
when you get it. uh just like a screen
grab of the tweet, but he said, "Sen
from inside the Tyler Robinson
courtroom, Erica Kirk was crying before
the hearing started. Donald Trump Jr. is
in the front row with his wife. Tyler
Robinson was laughing with his attorney
before the hearing started. Erica left
during the description of the shooting.
Um so I I mean I just think it's like
important just to kind of understand
that this is, you know, there's a lot of
noise, there's a lot of attention on
this. there there's a lot of, you know,
back and forth. I'm sure some of you
have seen my uh my my Twitter back and
forth with Candace or Blakes's. All
that's noise because actually what is
really important here is the fact that
these are human beings that are dealing
with this
awful experience. And I just can't
imagine
um being in that courtroom right now. Uh
and the fact that Erica has to do that
and be in front of all those people for
something she is a I mean she's a victim
here and uh you know Rob and Catherine
Kirk Charlie's parents as well. And we
should note uh we've seen Erica has
never seen a video of the shooting.
She's never really listened closely to a
description of it. She does avoid doing
that. And so when he says she walked
out, she's walking out because
>> the officer is describing what he saw
and what happened. Yeah.
>> And that's still very challenging for
her.
>> Yeah, absolutely. Um and I believe we
have uh our guest is just about ready.
Uh Jeff Metaf. Um, again, I reached out
to Jeff, um, because there's very few
people, especially in sort of the more
recent, you know, days and weeks and
months that could relate to what Erica
is going through. Um, and Rob and
Katherine, of course, Charlie's parents
more than, um, than Jeff. And so, uh,
Jeff Metaf, Austin Metaf's father, uh,
joins us now. Jeff, uh, welcome to the
show and, uh, thank you so much for
making the time and, um, I see you're
wearing a beautiful shirt there, sir.
Thank you.
>> Thank you for having me on.
>> Yeah. Um, you know, with you, it's it's
kind of easy because I'm not talking
about details of the case. I'm not
talking about procedural, you know,
elements uh, that the lawyers are
throwing out there. I just want to hear
from you. And I'm sure Erica and Rob and
Catherine, Charlie's parents, would love
to hear from you, too, because you've
been through something terrible and
tragic and and awful. And you've
experienced the crazy media attention
and the social media of it all. And you
know, you were a victim because you lost
your your son and you had to go through
hell to get justice for him. And um so
the floor is yours, sir. We we'd love to
hear what you what you want to tell
Erica, what you want to tell Rob and
Katherine in this moment.
>> Well, first my condolences go out to
them cuz uh
there aren't really words that can make
you feel better.
But knowing that someone has gone
through and understands maybe
what you're feeling gives you a little
bit more comfort when it comes from
them. But I just tell them, you know, I
know they're strong in their faith. Uh
so am I. And that's what's gotten me
through so far for me. Uh but but
sitting in that courtroom for the first
time ever facing the person that's
accused of uh murdering, you know,
either your spouse or your child.
It takes a a range of emotions. It's a
roller coaster ride while you sit there
and to be able to maintain and keep your
thought process
coherent uh is very challenging at the
least. Uh there's a million different
emotions that pulls you a 100 different
ways. Uh you know there there's the
there's the human side of you that that
sits on your shoulder and and whispers
in your ear the things you really don't
want to hear or shouldn't hear. And then
there's the little guy on this side of
the shoulder who whispers in your ear
and tells you what you should do and
what you shouldn't do and what you and
who you try to be.
>> Um
it goes back to an old Indian story
about the young lad who asked the chief
you know what's inside of us and he said
well there's two two wolves that live
inside you. One live is you know full of
hate, anger, fear and the other one is
you know love, compassion, kindness and
the young Indian said well which one
wins and he said the ones you feed the
most.
So it's the same thing with emotions
when you have like for forgiveness for
me people when cuz this is what happened
when Erica stood up there and said she
forgave him.
That was the same exact thing I did and
my phone started blowing up cuz they're
like oh my god you know she she just
forgave him just like you. And I said,
people don't understand forgiveness,
forgiveness is for me. So I don't carry
hate, anger, revenge in that inside of
me. You have to let that go
>> and rely on your faith because it says
vengeance, vengeance is mine, sayaith
the Lord. So, I mean, you you can you
can go scriptural, but realistically for
your mental health, you really need to
learn how to let that go so you don't
carry it around so it won't eat you up
like cancer. And that's the reason I was
able to forgive so fast because I know
what I needed to do for me as a
Christian. Um, and it doesn't make me
any more or better or less of a
Christian. Um, because at this point,
even my son cannot forgive him for what
he did. And I told him that's fine. You
don't have to. But this is a personal
choice for me and a personal choice with
my faith that this is the path that I
choose to go. Now, I don't forgive this
person for for his actions. I mean, I
have to forgive him and hope to God that
he can repent and find Jesus Christ as a
savior. Doesn't take the fact away that
he murdered my son. Doesn't take the
fact away I'm still human. Have
emotions. Don't think I'm not angry.
Don't think I'm not sad. Don't think I
don't cry. I mean, all these things are
true, but to make it the final
destination of where I know I'm going to
end up right beside Austin at some
point. And then he can tell me why the
understanding because I don't have
understanding at this moment. I just
have to trust God's plan cuz I don't
understand why he needed my son at 17.
But I'm also very aware there is evil in
this world and it does exist.
And like I've always said, light always
overcomes darkness.
So no matter what, I've learned to try
to tell myself this is only temporary.
Whatever is happening to me is only
temporary. You will get through it.
Because a a saying I came up with a long
time ago is if God brought you to it,
he can bring you through it.
So, I have no idea what
God has planned for me. I sure didn't uh
see this coming at all. Um but it it
does reshape you. It does break you down
and it does you become someone different
because you're never going to be the
person you were before. it, that person
is gone. And you have to learn how to
live
in I don't want to say a new normal
because I hate that phrase because
there's nothing normal about it.
>> But you have to learn how what I chose
to do is one of the things I've learned
is instead of learning to learn how to
live without him, I'm going to live for
him. So I'm going to keep his name out
there. I'm going to do, you know, uh I
I'll probably form
a 5013C3 and get some nonprofit and
organization,
uh, you know, uh, all in for Austin
Metaf Foundation or something because I
want to keep it going. I want to help
people out there. I want to be able to
uh keep the message alive because I
think nowadays in today's society the
youth has no impulse control
uh deescalation skills, conflict
resolution skills. I think some of these
things need to be taught early on. Uh
even in school, I think it could be a
curriculum. Um I would love to go around
and speak to high school and colleges
and wherever would want to hear me speak
upon this. Uh I would I would love to be
uh approached so I could spread the word
and do something like that. I mean uh
because right now at this point I really
don't have a clue what I'm going to do
next with my life. And I just trust God
that he's going to point me in the
direction, you know. Uh I mean, yes, I'm
a yes, I'm a big fan of Turning Point.
Yes, I was a big fan of Charlie Kirk. I
mean, so I mean has nothing A lot of
people will say, well, you know, well,
he was racist. he was. No, he wasn't.
No, he wasn't. If you listen to him,
just like, you know, I was taken out of
context, people can take snippets and
then turn it into their narrative and
and that's and that's totally unfair and
and to to misrepresent someone like
that. I mean, really, what kind of
person are you and what are you trying
to achieve? Are you just out there
stirring the pot, trying to get clicks,
trying to make a living off social media
or Tik Tok? I mean, are you do are you
do are are you actually have value that
you're putting out there? Are or is it
really just crap?
>> Jeeoff, that's what I hear you saying
is, you know, you're you want to take
this tragedy and turn it into purpose
>> and you talked about talking on uh
speaking on campuses or at schools or
whatever, you know, we'd love to help
you do that because I do think you have
a really important message to spread and
um and you know, to live with that
purpose, live for Austin. I find so much
of what you were just saying, you know,
I, you know, Blake and I lost somebody
too, but not on the level of you or
Erica or Rob and Catherine, but you
know, if I felt like I related to it a
lot as well because you do kind of
realize that the life you you had before
all this happened. Um, it will never be
the same and you have to live in our
current moment with our current reality.
I think that's something I've been
reticent to accept. So, even hearing you
say that was powerful for me to hear.
Well, I mean,
>> yeah,
>> I'm just a I'm just a normal guy. I I'm
a vessel that God chooses to use however
he sees fit. Um, I don't always agree or
like it,
>> but uh,
>> you know, I uh I trust him and uh he
he's he's putting things in front of me
that I need to be open my eyes and be
aware of just as just as this interview
today. I mean, I've always been a huge
Turning Point USA fan. I was a huge
Charlie Kirk fan. And just to be able to
be on the show and talk and and
understand, you know, now I'm not going
to say that my loss is the same as
Erica's loss, cuz it's not. She hers was
a spouse, mine was a child, but that
doesn't take away from her loss or my
loss at all. Because loss affects all of
us differently, just like grief affects
all of us differently. And there's no
timeline. There's no instruction. But
there's no getting over it. I I mean,
that's that's that doesn't happen. And
and the worst thing someone can say to
you, and I know they're always trying to
be nice, is uh you know, how you doing?
Are you okay? Okay. That to me, that's
the dumbest question in the world. Don't
ever ask me that.
I'm like, seriously, just I understand
you don't know what to say. Just put
your hand on my shoulder and pray. I
mean, you don't have to you don't have
to be a you know, sometimes it's awkward
for people. A bunch of my friends even
like we don't know what to say to you.
And I said, you don't have to say
anything. Just come sit down beside me.
That's all. You have to say a word. Just
your presence tells me you're here for
me. That's all I need to know. There's
no words that are going to make me feel
better. There's no words that are going
to make Erica feel better. uh that take
the that healing and that feeling better
takes is happens within us the person
who suffered the tragedy. Uh yes, we we
you know I appreciate the condolences
and the love and the support throughout
the the nation, the world, the
community, my friends, my family. Um but
you still have to go through the
process. You still have to grieve. And
there's five phases and and and they can
raise their head at any time. And I can
be fine for a week and then a tsunami of
emotion will hit me just instantly. It
could be a trigger of a favorite song or
a favorite place or a favorite food or
just any little memory that can be
triggered uh will force you right back
into that flow of emotions will
basically you lose it. You you start
crying and you you know hopefully you
know you're you're in somewhere a safe
space hopefully. But truth of the matter
is, you know, uh you don't control this
and and it's
you you try to learn how to deal with
it. Um because you never know when it
actually is going to hit. So you just
try to you know catch your triggers uh
pray and and you know allow yourself to
grieve. Don't try to hold stuff in. Let
it out. And if you don't, I'll tell you,
it's if you keep it inside, it's going
to eat you up like cancer and you're
going to be miserable and you're going
to be bitter and you're going to carry
grudges and it's going to affect the way
you raise your children, the way the way
the way you talk to your spouse, your
boss, everything in life. You you'll
become a a bitter sour I'll never be the
same. But I think this also gives me the
opportunity to become better, to be
better than what I ever have been. Now
I've got the opportunity to even step up
further. Now I've got the opportunity
maybe to help other people. Maybe I can
go around and speak to people. They can
actually make a difference. Like and I'm
not saying I'm Charlie Kirk, but but
along those lines, he went around and
spoke and and made a difference. um you
know he he was an amazing individual. I
will never compare myself to him. I can
only uh admire from afar and and try to
achieve you know half the person he ever
was. Uh I the man was a just a walking
chat GPT full of knowledge and could and
had words that you you didn't you
couldn't go up against. He made too much
sense and that's what's the problem is
for the left. He he made common sense.
That's That's the best I've ever heard
it actually. Charlie made too much
sense. He just made too much sense for
them. I you know, and I I love what
you're talking about though, and I
Blake, I I want to get you in here, but
>> I just feel like um you're talking about
this process of becoming, right? You
think about a a story, you know, whether
it's a movie or a book or whatever,
where, you know, the character has to
become they're put through this trial
and they become something different. And
you know the character like you think
about Jonah and the whale. Jonah didn't
want to go, you know, to Nineveh. He
didn't want to he ran from God and he
became but God forced him to sort of
step into that calling.
>> Um and eventually he said yes to it. And
I think
>> out of the boat.
>> I mean there's a ton of biblical things
people I mean there's tons David and the
lion Peter in the boat you know Lazarus
back from the dead you know Jesus wept.
I mean, there's so much things that
that's in bu that in the Bible that yes,
you I choose to incorporate into my
life. Charlie chose to incorporate into
his life. Uh now, I'm not I'm not saying
other religions are bad or anything.
It's just a personal belief and it's who
I want to be and it's who I want to
reach and those and anyone who has the
same belief as me uh that I can reach
out to. maybe I can help them or help
someone in a situation uh where I can
somehow be uh helpful, inspirational,
guiding, you know, I don't want to say
knowledge, but maybe that, you know,
give share knowledge uh just so they
maybe if I can reach just one person,
it's a success.
But obviously Charlie reached millions
of people.
>> If I could do just a a quarter of what
he ever did, I would be very happy. But,
you know, I I I feel parallels uh along
with him is just wanting to be out
there, spread the word, you know, and
and have a meaningful conversation
without insults and hate and threats of
violence and things like that.
>> Jeff, all of this has been tremendous,
incredible. Uh, I want to speak to one
specific parallel that exists between
you and Erica, which besides that it's
you've lost a loved one, besides that
it's a very high-profile case, but that
it's one that unfortunately we see
hateful, gleeful things posted online.
We talked about what a lot of supporters
of your son's killer were were saying
online, posting videos, Tik Tok, and all
of that. And we see similar things with
that here. We had our young women's
leadership event and there was a guy
with a big paperiermâché head of Charlie
reenacting his death. We see people post
about how happy they are that Charlie's
dead threat against Erica at that
women's leadership.
>> On the flip side of this also, you don't
have this as much but the conspiracy
theories about it where they say
actually Erica's not a grieving widow.
She's a fake widow. She conspired. She's
helping cover up the real killers, but
you're the really the closest person we
have to someone who's dealt with
something of this scale. Do you have a
message for Erica? How you would advise
uh overcoming the feelings this is going
to cause in her uh
ignoring it, getting past it? Just any
thoughts in that vein?
>> Yeah. So, for your for your mental
health, uh you need to stay you need to
stay off social media. You just need to
stay away from all avenues that want to
spew this vile hatred uh misinformation,
total lies. Uh same exact I still to
this day I still get death threats and
my family still gets death threats. Um,
now
this is a very small
percentage of
a certain subculture demographic that is
causing these issues. So it in
realistically if you're looking at the
big picture of it, they're really a
small portion of people, but they're
soulless.
They have no moral compass. They don't
contribute to society in an effective
way. All they want to do is obviously
they don't have enough life of their
own, but they want to get involved in
yours and just spew hate
based on maybe the color of your skin
and that's it. And there was a man who
said, "Don't judge or or judge a man by
his character,
not by the color of his skin." Pretty
famous guy. And I think that's a great
statement because that's the same way I
look at people. I don't judge you by
color. I judge you by character. And you
know, and for those who maybe are
younger than me or didn't know who said
this, uh Martin Luther King is the man
who who made that quote famous. And so
it like again, this isn't a race thing.
This is a human being thing. Erica's
husband was murdered. my son was
murdered.
Those things are not going to change.
To accept to to one to just accept the
fact is hard enough to cuz it does seem
surreal the first few days it's going on
like it like you're in a dream and it's
not really happening. But it really is
and you have to figure out how you're
going to navigate this. One, get some
professional help. Find a counselor.
Find a grief group. Uh something just
but don't isolate. That is the worst
thing you can do. Get get you a support
network. Uh learn what you know
understand what you're going to go
through. Uh it's not going to help the
pain, but it's going to help with the
understanding and that's going to help
you navigate it. It's not going to be
easy. It's the hardest thing ever. It's
the most painful thing ever.
But you have to get through it because I
tell people you never know how strong
you are until you have to be
>> and then you're you can actually
surprise yourself. Uh examples 10 years
ago I was diagnosed with stage four
cancer and they told me Jeff if it gets
below your neck we can't save you.
You're dead.
I just got faced with immortality and I
have two seven-year-old boys hugging my
legs yell yelling daddy daddy please
don't die.
So
>> I had to make my it's a mindset and I
had to make a mindset of okay I am not
going to die
and it's the same thing with this
situation right now. I am not going to
let this beat me. I am going to become
something better out of this tragedy.
I'm going to create something for other
people hopefully to be better out of
this tragedy and uh I and it will carry
my son's name on which is the which is
the number one thing that I really want
to do is carry his name on. Uh we
already have a scholarship set up at the
high school for to give a athlete a
scholarship, the Austin Metaf
scholarship board every year. Uh, I'd
like to I'd like to increase that. I'd
like to grow that. There's other uh
charities I'd like to be involved in
also. And I would love to I would love
to speak and go around and just be able
to to do that with
There we go. to to be able to do that
with people and just spread and spread
my story and hopefully uh give people
some sort of inspiration or some sort of
nugget they can carry on and just
improve their life with because we're
all here for a short period of time.
Tomorrow's never promised as I'm very
aware of that now. Um, so live every day
with purpose and now I feel like I have
a purpose. I had a purpose before and it
was being a father. I'm still a father.
I have one in heaven. I have one still
here fixing to go to college. So I still
have responsibilities to my other son
who's lived through the most tragic
event, trauma. I can't even imagine. I
can't I don't have a twin brother and I
sure can't imagine seeing him being
murdered and dying in my arms. I
It's okay, Jeff.
you know, his
hunter Hunter's been put through a lot.
I mean, we all have, but you know, he's
he's my son and as a parent,
you know, you always want to protect
your kids
and uh you know, the stuff online and
let me say this up front, this goes for
both sides, not just my side. I want to
make this perfectly clear. the stuff
that's going on online, the memes, the
pictures, the vile comments. Look, they
come from the far right, too, with
pictures of Carmelo saying very vile
things that are going to happen to him
in prison. I don't condone that. That is
not who you need to be. Stop it, please.
These are two kids.
One's dead
and the other one's in prison. So,
there's no good outcome. There's nothing
good about it. and making memes and and
and derogatory remarks on dead children
or are imprisoned children. I'm sorry.
You you need to you need to check
yourself. You you need to really look in
the mirror and go, "Wow, what who am I?
What kind of person am I? And what if
you have children, what are you teaching
what are you teaching your children?
What my kids' kids futures are like?
What's what are we where are we going to
be? Are we going to be divided? Are we
going to have a race war? Are we going
to have a civil war again? We've already
had one in this country.
I I I that's I'm worried about the moral
decay of society and where we're taking
it and what we're learning to become
acceptable
is not acceptable.
Well, I'm I'm old school as my kids tell
me. Oh, you're old school, Dad. Yeah, I
am. I am old school. Uh I respected my
parents. I did not have a sense of
entitlement. I had to work for
everything that was uh given to me. I
had rules, responsibilities, chores. Uh
my parents instilled discipline in me.
Uh you know, if we were inside, we were
grounded. We hated being inside. We
wanted to be outside. Today's world, I'm
not I mean, my generation was the last
generation to grow up without cell
phones, internet, and social media.
greatest time in the world to grow up
>> because now everything's recorded,
everything's taped, everything. I mean,
you have no privacy. You cannot do the
same things you I did when I was a kid.
But today's today's youth is put under
such more scrutiny, more mental health
issues. Uh I mean I I honestly believe
you know
when we took God out of school it
affected our society. When we started
giving people voices and opinions and
platforms to say whatever they think and
if they say it loud enough they think
it's right and they in their mind it's a
perceived reality and it's not and it's
not the truth but it is their reality.
That's what they live in. And the you
can see how today has society has been
formed. Just go back 50 years and see
how far we've come. Just go back a
hundred years and see how far we've
come. It's amazing. I mean, America is
the greatest country in the world. No
doubt about it. But we create our own
problems half the time.
>> Yeah.
>> From within. From within.
The outside factors are not. We need to
deal with what's within our borders. We
need to deal with the homeless. We need
to deal with the veterans. We need to
deal with mental health. These are
issues. But everyone wants to start, oh,
it's a gun, you know. Oh, so guns are
bad. No, guns are good. People are bad.
Guns don't kill people. People kill
people. That's what I tell people. Yes,
I'm a Second Amendment person. Yes, I
believe in the right. I believe in
everything. Do I believe in murder? No.
>> Right.
>> It's a crime. It's a law we have to keep
our civilized normal society actions in
order. You break the law, there are
consequences. I told my sons this all
the time growing up. You are free in
life to make any decisions you want, but
you are not free from the consequences.
That's
>> right.
>> So remember that. And this was a perfect
example. Unfortunately, it took it to
the extreme in my case,
>> but there are consequences for shoving a
knife in someone's chest.
>> Charlie's case. Yeah.
>> Oh, Charlie's case is that's a slam
dunk. I mean, the man was assassinated
as I watched on TV. I I mean,
>> yeah,
>> there's there's just something wrong
with people.
>> Yeah, Jeff, I I really appreciate you
giving us so much of your time today.
And um I know God's got uh big plans for
what you're going to do next and the
purpose you're going to live with. And
honestly, I'm just I'm really encouraged
listening to you because um I I believe
what you said Erica needs to hear and
Rob and Catherine need to hear and um
there's just very few people that could
relate to what they're going through
right now and you're one of them. And um
it's a terrible club for you to be in
and for us to sort of be in and
>> membership dues.
>> Yeah. But we so appreciate you and I I
thank you for for making this a priority
today. Um, I'm going to clip this and
send it right to Erica so she can watch
it tonight. Um, and we just uh we just
really appreciate you. God bless you.
Really mean that.
>> God bless our family and uh you know you
obviously know what I told you off
offline. You can reach out. So
>> thanks too, Jeff.
>> Just God bless them and you know I'll
pray for them.
>> God bless you.
>> Jeff Metaf, Austin Metaf's father. um so
generous with his time and yeah that was
powerful just to sit back and listen to
I mean there's just something about
somebody that's been through that
process personally and had to had to
face so much tragedy and heartache and
um I I hate to admit I mean I don't hate
to admit it I just have to confront the
fact that I relate to so much of that
and I know you do too Blake and we're
going to take a a quick break here um I
think we're gonna the court's going to
come back in session um at some point.
So, we're just kind of waiting for that.
U maybe if we want to take the rav feed
guys for the stream. Um and uh
>> they'll be back at I guess 1 their time
and I think they go until 5 you said
>> 5 Utah time. Yeah.
>> So, that would be 4 Pacific or
>> 7 Eastern.
>> 7 Eastern.
>> Yeah. And then we've got a special we're
going to do a recap episode at the end
of the day. Uh, and we'll we'll see how
far they get cuz we were speaking with
Jay Town earlier and he said in theory
they could get through everything today,
but the defense is a lot. It'll drag
out. So,
>> so, all right. Uh, we'll we'll be back
soon, guys. Uh, talk then.
Welcome back to Human Events Daily. I'm
Bo Davidson filling in for Jack Pobic
while he attends the live trial of Tyler
Robinson. The preliminary trial that's
about a five-day trial that will
determine whether this will go to a jury
trial. I've got Kevin Pobic on hand in
Provo, Utah, as well as Benny Ray
Harmony in the DC area. Uh Kevin, right
before we went to break, we talked about
how the national media may try to
downplay some of the leftist activism of
Robinson and his uh partner. Um I'm
reading from NBC News, too. Uh as well,
it says that on Monday, uh I guess it
was past Monday, State District Judge
Tony Graph Jr. granted prosecutors
motion to quash a subpoena brought by
defense attorneys to have Lance Twigs,
his his partner, testify live in Utah at
the preliminary hearing on July 6th.
Twigs was living with Robinson at the
time of the killing as a romantic
partner, but he they court referred to
him as a mister, but defense attorneys
have previously referred to him as
transgender and goes by Luna. Uh so we
know that that is that is a storyline
that is a component of this. How does
that play into the broader picture? Are
you seem to indicate that the mainstream
media, who of course sympathizes with
the left and has a leftist lens and
bias, will downplay that that aspect or
the leftist uh aspects of Robinson and
Lance Twigs.
>> I do I do because this is the worst case
scenario, right? Like we Charlie and
Jack and and many others have
been on record for saying like look at
the crimes that are committed by Antifa
types by these furry like drugged out
weirdos you know on college campuses. Um
college campuses are where you know
people's minds can be molded in one way
or another. And that's what that's a
thing that Charlie held so dear to his
heart. um he knew where the battleground
was and that's on college campuses.
Okay. And sometimes, you know,
especially
classifying these places as
indoctrination camps for liberal woke
ideologies, these people also get
involved in, you know, who knows what
kind of drugs or sex kind of uh sexual
sexual fantasies or just weird LGBTQ
relationships these days. So you tie all
that together and he's doing this stuff
with Lance Twigs and so it is kind of
interesting how they
could not subpoena Lance to come and and
testify one way or the other. That
that's very interesting. Um but uh yeah
that the so on the left the mainstream
will say oh well it's just normalized.
They'll downplay it and normalize it Bo.
That's what we're up against really in
in not just colleges, but you know, you
see it with these anti- ice protests and
and these, you know, pride parades like
they just try and do it over and over
and over just to normalize it, make it
okay, and it's not okay at
>> No, it's it's it's not at all. And you
bring up you bring a a great point,
Kevin, because when you think about the
the circumstances surrounding this and
who who who allegedly did it, who his
partner is was, however you going to
think of it, you know, that that
community can tend to be very violent.
Uh and and we we've seen this, I mean,
historically speaking, this is unfort
it's this is not subjective. This is an
objective reality that we have seen this
community either mental health reasons,
hormonal reasons, who knows what. But
but there is a faction there and that
there is a psychological component to
taking a certain ideology and making
that violent uh and making it certainly
uh something that causes murder. So
speak to that Kevin.
>> Absolutely. And I'd add on too that
there's there's studies that uh you know
homosexual relationships and lesbian
relationships also correlate to a
increase in domestic violence issues
too.
>> So there we have that. Okay. And you
know, so we're talking about
all that. Okay, like maybe okay,
somebody could have the freedom to be
that way. But then when you get a then
you start getting into the violence
part, that becomes a problem for
society. And in this case, you know,
being able to, you know, bring a gun
onto a college campus and shoot somebody
that you don't like because you don't
want to talk to them because they're
giving you the truth about, you know,
your circumstances. They don't like it.
And Charlie said that famously too. It's
like when when the conversation ends,
that's when the violence starts.
>> And that is not what the mainstream
media wants to see. So therefore,
because this is evidence of that
happening, um they're going to try and
downplay it or normalize it or write it
off like, oh, or or or they'll just
downplay, hey, maybe he had like uh he's
an exception. Maybe he did have some
mental difficulties. That's why he wrote
those things on those bullets. and
>> you know, he didn't really mean it or
something or or maybe there's just not a
organized movement uh you know, against
Republicans and conservatives and
anybody who loves America. Um you know,
I saw that in Minneapolis myself with
the anti-CE protesters. They just all
kinds of
very violent rhetoric. And you know,
we're going to see it in an uptick. I
mean, it's kind of a tangent, but
towards the midterms as well. Um, but
these no kings rally, these no kings
protests, these indivisible
protests, they're they're being funded
and and they're they're organizing and
they're being put on pushed pushed and
donated to by uh who Lord knows who. So,
we have all that. It it's it's being
funded now. It's like I don't know maybe
in the 60s7s you'd have like a small
community of homosexual people but now
it's being actively funded by the left
and these soros types individuals. Okay.
So so the left does not want that to be
exposed. So that's why they'll downplay
it.
>> That's absolutely true. Um before we go
to break I just do want to mention that
tonight we do have some special coverage
from 8 to 10 p.m. Eastern. Uh it's a
2-hour block. We've got from 8 to 9 will
be Andrew Kovvette and team uh covering
of course the case and then from 9 to 10
we'll be a special edition of Human
Events live from Provo, Utah. Kevin, I
presume that you'll probably be a part
of that as well and uh and we'll be
getting some more live updates following
the trial. So I do want to mention for
for those that are watching right now uh
since we don't have Jack that we will
have some live coverage from 8 to 10
p.m. tonight uh as a wrap-up of some of
the coverage daily that we're getting.
So, uh, let's take a quick break and we
will be right back with more Human
Events
Welcome back to Human Events Daily. I'm
Bo Davidson in for Jack Bobic who is in
Provo, Utah. Uh he's there for the
trial, uh the preliminary hearing of
Tyler Robinson. We'll have more on that
tonight. We expect for Jack to be
joining Kevin, but we also have Kevin
Pobic right now as well as Benny Ray
Harmony. Uh before the break we were
talking about leftism uh the second
amendment and some of the ironies the
twist of ironies that are happening with
the second amendment. Benny I want to
come to you uh simply because we have
been discussing this uh with respect to
the left and democrats want to be be the
first people to take away your second
amendment right but yet ironically it is
many people who identify as Democrats or
liberals that seem to be doing a higher
proportionate share of the killing.
No, exactly. And Bo, I was talking to
you earlier. There was just a recent uh
situation that went viral on social
media where this staffer for a Democrat
in uh Wisconsin uh posted a video saying
that the new mantra is kill your local
Republican. So, I just I find it quite
uh hypocritical and quite funny how the
people that say guns should be banned,
guns, you know, need you can't no one
should be allowed to have them are the
ones doing the killing most of the time.
you know, not I'm not saying all, you
know, this is a party verse party thing,
but it comes down to it where okay,
well, how many Republicans, you know,
identifi people that identified as
Republicans have have publicly
assassinated someone or tried to. So,
it's just I want to open that discussion
because it's it's quite interesting and
I know Kevin has some good some good,
you know, input on that as well.
Yeah, Kevin, there's there's a high
degree of vitriol among the left. And
that vitriol has t, you know, it's one
thing to be angry. It's one thing to
want to see grievances uh addressed in
some way. It's another thing to take
that to a different level, to take that
to a violent level and to kill people.
So, but that's something that has been
recurrent. We we we've seen this now. I
mean, we've seen this with the
president. What is it? Three
assassination attempts now. We've seen
this obviously with Charlie which
unfortunately was successful. Uh we're
we're still putting those pieces
together in the aftermath of it. But but
speak to that.
>> Sure. So so quite simply I mean argument
is the last line of defense. Okay. After
after the first amendment fails, after
one can no longer argue successfully,
that's when the violence starts. Okay.
And so so with the second amendment, I
mean, it's it's important. I mean,
Charlie was a champion of the first
amendment. He loved debate. He loved
arguing with people. It's like, you
know, against against this
indoctrination like we're saying. And so
the argument will be uh
guns don't kill people, people do,
right? So like the mainstream media will
say okay this is just a you know mental
disability etc etc and that that's been
used as a argument against taking away
guns and and I guess ideally repealing
the second amendment but also uh in
particular to be more uh objective and
technical in this case with Tyler
Robinson. I'm reading here again, just a
refresher, the weapon was a vintage
Mouser model 98 boltaction rifle. Okay.
And it was his grandfather's rifle with
no serial number. Okay. So, might have
slipped through the cracks a little bit.
So, again, they, you know, gun grabbers
would be uh cracked down on that as
well. So, so I I definitely believe that
will be a push.
>> Okay. Uh we do have attorney on the line
right now, Samir Javski on Zoom with us.
He's a partner at Sam and Ash LLP. Uh
Sam, do you got me?
>> I do. I sure do.
>> Sam, we don't have a ton of time left,
just short of five minutes, but tell me
just from a legal perspective, what
you've seen thus far, uh just your
general observations of how the court
proceedings have gone. Uh the
objectivity of the judge, how you've
seen him dismiss and overrule a lot of
the defense's objections. Just give us
kind of your your your legal assessment
thus far.
>> Yeah, just real quick. You know, the
judge is, I think, doing everything
correctly here. I I I mean, he's playing
it by the book. You know, one of the one
of the big issues here is, and this is a
preliminary hearing, right? This is
probable cause. Uh, you know, this very,
very low threshold. And, uh, you know,
there's all this evidence, and the
defense is trying to say that there's,
you know, a lot of it's hearsay, that
it's secondhand evidence. And the fact
of the matter is that that Utah
something that's you know peculiar to
Utah's system they have a very broad
allowance in these preliminary hearings
for this hearsay evidence. So things
like u you know what what information
for example that was told to two
officers who then uh put that
information into the police report. Um
and the judge was letting it for the
most part letting it in and that's it
seems to me to be absolutely appropriate
you know at this stage. So, you know,
what I'm seeing is is all is all
basically normal and and and par for the
course.
>> Well, let me ask you this. In reading
this NBC News article, I know they
didn't have uh Twigs testify today, but
it says prosecutors moved to quash the
subpoena for Twigs, saying they intended
to use a recorded interview in which
Twigs is alleged to have told
investigators that Robinson confessed to
the crime, concealed the weapon,
disposed of clothing, and told Twigs not
to contact law enforcement. If that gets
in,
what what else what else do you need to
see? I mean, I'm just, you know, I know
that trials are bigger than that, but if
that piece is admitted, what I mean,
what what cases does the defense have?
>> Well, they don't don't have much of a
case. And remember, it establishes two
things, right? Uh, first of all, it
establishes the the intent element. Uh
and and it also it also helps you know I
think bolster the case for the
aggravated um for aggravated murder
murder which here is is um predicated on
on endangering lives at the event but
also the political element. So you know
I I to me this this is a very crucial
piece of evidence. I I I do not envision
a universe in which it doesn't get in.
And remember too, Twigs can can can be
called into court later to testify um
and can be questioned against this
document and against this recording. So
I you know I I think it's going to get
in.
>> Do you think we see as Kevin and I were
discussing earlier a a shorter than 5day
period of this preliminary trial to move
to a jury trial or do we think we see
all five days of it?
>> Well, it's tough to tell right now. I
mean they're getting through it in a
pretty fast clip. Um and and and again I
mean there the likelihood it could go to
it could go there's is there enormous
amount of evidence. So you know I I
could see per perhaps all all five days
but nobody should interpret this being
lengthy to mean that in any way case uh
any way that the that the prosecution's
case is is weak. Right? There's a
perception sometimes oh it's going long
it means the defense really has
something. No, there's just a lot of
evidence here and the judge wants to go
through it thoroughly.
>> Yeah.
>> And the reason for that is the judge, a
good judge doesn't want any appealable
issues.
>> And so going through it thoroughly,
giving the defense their day in court,
allowing every argument to be made while
it's frustrating sometimes for us to
watch, um, helps, you know, helps shore
this up and prevent any of it being
tossed down the road.
>> Sam, we only have just short of a
minute. I just want to, as I asked Benny
and and Kevin earlier, any observations
on the demeanor of Tyler Robinson that
you've seen? We we we we've seen him
seem like ISIS pouring through his
veins. What What does that say? Does it
give us any indication of his of his
mental uh uh um status? But we've got
about 30 seconds.
>> Yeah. I mean, look, the guy the guy just
um you know, looks looks terrifying. I'm
looking at him and I'm I'm I can't even
imagine what what Erica's you know,
Erica is going through and the family's
going through. Um but he's not the jury
isn't in the room. The jury hasn't even
been impanled yet. Um, so you know, we
may see a different Tyler Robinson if if
if you know, confir when confronted by a
jury at trial. It'll be interesting to
compare.
>> Samowski, thank you so much for your
expertise. And Kevin Pobic and Benny,
thank you so much. Make sure to tune in
tonight 8 to 10 p.m. for live coverage
of the Tyler Robinson pre-trial.
Court is back in session
noting the presence of counsel. Uh
believe we left off crossexamination.
Miss Nester, are you ready to proceed?
>> Yes. May I please the court?
>> All right. You may.
>> Good afternoon.
>> Good afternoon.
>> I do want to circle back before I start
my new section on two I just want to
specify two things. First of all, um, we
talked about that you had had no
briefing or no materials about security
on campus for this particular event. Did
you ever have any operational or
tactical plan that you were given for
that event?
>> Uh, for this event? No.
>> Okay. And you also mentioned that you've
done SWAT in the past.
>> Yes.
>> Um, were you a were you a sniper?
>> I was. I worked well with them, but I
was not a sniper.
>> Okay.
So when you Okay, just strike that.
>> Also, we talked about the holster. The
holster that was found. Are you aware
there were any other guns confiscated on
the scene that day?
>> I'm not.
>> You don't know one way or the other?
>> I don't know.
>> All right. Now, I want to go through
with you your timeline. Um, you
mentioned that
you you started at the Hall of Flags,
right? And then you came down. It took
you a minute to kind of navigate the
stairs with the crowd and the chaos and
everything. And then you were in the
grassy area of the courtyard for a bit.
Is that right?
>> Yeah. So, about 30 seconds get down the
stairs and then I went right down to
where the tent was.
>> And that's where you found the holster.
>> No, the holster was up higher. So I went
down by the tent, so it's lower level.
So as I came down towards where Charlie
Creek was shot, I went down towards the
tent to assess to see what was going on
down there because I I didn't know
exactly what I heard the gunshot. Didn't
know exactly what was going on.
>> I'm sorry. I missed that you went down
to the tent. So let me ask you about
that. So what did you do when you got
down to the tent?
>> Uh when I got down to the tent, Charlie
was gone. They put him in an SUV and
left. Um, at that moment there were
still some people running around so I
decided to preserve the scene as much as
I could with trying to escort people out
and that's why I went back in and
started pushing people off the grass
area to conserve any ammunition or any
casings or anything to that effect that
would be around. I wanted to make sure
people were off and there was much
evidence preserved as possible.
>> So just to be clear, by the time you got
to the tent, Mr. Kirk had already been
removed and taken from the scene. Is
that right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, so in your professional
opinion, what was what was the perimeter
of the crime scene?
>> What do you mean by the parameter? So
>> the perimeter like how far did this
crime scene stretch? Like where did you
want people to move off of?
>> Oh, at first I wanted them all off the
grass because like I said is I thought
we had a suspect in custody. So to me it
would be a close encounter. So I was
trying to push everybody off the grass
in case there were shell casings or to
that effect that it got on the grass. So
after I pushed him off to that part um
and getting up to the top where I saw
that empty holster, when I saw that
empty holster is when it things started
slowing down for me a little bit, all
the chaos and stuff is that's when I
realized that it was a rifle shot, not a
handgun shot.
>> Okay. And that's when you saw the low
building and it occurred. Do you should
go check it out?
>> Yes, it was right in my line of sight.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but um you
the whole time that this is going on,
you had an active body camera on your I
guess your collar. Is that right?
>> That was right on my chest. Yes.
>> Okay. And it was on.
>> Yes.
>> Um and it appears to me from reviewing
your body camera that there was another
individual who was with you that went to
the Losi building who was in civilian
clothing but appeared to have a gun. Who
was that? I I don't know who he was
exactly. He He had a badge on and I had
somebody with me to back me up as I ran
up the stairs to make sure I had
somebody with me.
>> So, you don't know what agency he's from
or where he's from?
>> No.
>> And he it looked like he had a pistol.
>> Yes.
>> Is that right?
>> A handgun. Yes.
>> A handgun.
>> Yeah.
>> Um and so the two of you go to the Losi
building.
>> Yes.
Did when you reviewed the videotape at
the police department later, did you
check to see if anyone had been on the
LOC building after the shooting after
this individual had jumped off that
you've already talked about? Was there
anybody else on the roof? Did you check
and see in that gap of time?
>> In that gap of time, no. So once I put
up the barrier, I only walked walked up
to about that point. Then I went down
and reviewed the video from that moment
on. So, were you able to see are you
able to say for one way or the other if
anyone else had been on that roof in
between when the person jumped off the
building and when you came on the roof?
Are you able to say one way or the
other?
>> Uh, there was people up there looking
for an individual that ran that way
because when I first got told the
individual ran heading north, we didn't
know where the shooter was. So, we
started climbing up and looking clearing
the building. And it wasn't until I went
to the PD and actually saw him jump off
of the building that I knew he was off
the building.
Let me rephrase that because I think I'm
I either asked it badly or you
misunderstood me. So, let me let me go
back again. So, from the time that the
individual that you spotted on the video
jumped off the roof, right, the
individual that you thought was in the
prone position.
>> Okay.
>> Between that and when you got on the
roof, did you ever check to see if
anybody else had been on the roof in
that period of time?
>> Yeah. And I didn't see anybody.
>> So, you did?
>> I didn't notice anybody.
You didn't did you look on the video to
see that entire Okay, that's what I'm
asking. So, you did not review the video
to see if there was someone between you
that individual jumping off and you
coming on if anybody had been on or
disturbed that scene in any way. Okay.
But once you put the tape up, you're
then we're confident from that point on
the scene was preserved, right?
>> Um, by the way, where did you get that
tape? Uh officers responded on the scene
that he was down on the bottom and threw
it up to me. So
>> Okay. So you didn't have it on you?
>> No.
>> And you didn't leave the scene to go get
it?
>> No.
>> Someone threw it up?
>> Yes.
>> Great.
All right.
While you were on the roof, did you
encounter any spent casings?
>> As a matter of fact, no. That's why when
I I saw the prone position where the
where a person would be laying down as a
sniper being around guns and snipers all
the time, I was looking for a spin shell
casing. I couldn't see one. I was
looking over the edge, looking all over
the place, making sure the gravel wasn't
disturbed. And I couldn't find a shell
casing at that moment.
>> And that would be the reason you would
be looking for that was because some
types of guns when they shoot eject a
casing automatically, right? Some do,
>> some don't.
>> Yes.
>> Right. Um and then you also didn't find
any un unshot bullets?
>> No.
>> Okay. Are you aware of there being a
bullet found on another roof?
>> I'm not
>> vicinity.
Were you aware of another bullet being
found on the scene, not on the roof of
the Losi building?
>> No.
>> All right. Your body cam footage that I
reviewed appears to end while you're
still on the roof. Do you know why that
is?
>> I think the battery went dead. It was
just right at that moment. Okay. And do
you know did you ever turn it back on
that day or go get it re I don't know
what do you have to do? Charge it or
stick a new battery in it. I don't even
know.
>> Usually dock it, but no, I didn't go
back. I was too It was too chaotic
running around.
>> So that 27 minute and 35 second body cam
that starts when you're at the Hall of
Flags and ends while you're still on the
roof, but haven't put the crime tape up
yet. That's the only body cam you have
that day.
>> Yes.
Right.
>> You mentioned when you went to the
police department, you watched the video
where you saw an individual
up on the roof,
>> right?
>> And that individual was in the vicinity
where you saw the disturbance in the
gravel.
>> Yes.
>> And um when you looked at that video,
were you able to identify the
individual's face?
>> I know. Were you able to identify any
markings on their clothing?
>> Uh, no.
>> Were you able to identify their height?
>> No.
>> When you all when we looked at the
picture of the I think you called it the
sniper perch. I'm going to use your word
um words. It looked like there was a
measuring tape laid out next to it. Did
you ever were you present when they
measured like the distance like how long
how tall that person would have been?
>> I was not. So, you don't know what that
is?
>> I don't.
>> Um,
>> were you able to tell the person's
weight from the video that you saw?
>> I can tell he wasn't a heavy set, so
more of a
>> skinnier person.
>> Could you identify what shoes they were
wearing?
>> I could not.
>> Could you identify anything about a hat
or what was on their head?
>> At the moment, no, I couldn't.
>> Okay.
And did you see a gun in the video?
>> I saw a long black
object in the left hand as he was
running over across the roof.
>> And in fact, did you describe that in
your report as a um bag?
>> I don't know. I have no idea. I don't
know why.
>> All right, let's pull that report back
up, please.
Oh, never mind. I don't think you
mentioned what you saw. So, in your
report, let's do pull that back up,
please. Page five on the Bagley one.
So, looking at the second page, you're
actually going to have to go to page
six, I think.
You talk about what you saw in the video
where they jumped off the roof and again
I'm going to remind you of our
conversation we had before about you
understand how important these reports
are.
>> Yep.
>> And you do you mention anywhere in this
report that you saw a gun?
>> I did not. I just had an object.
>> Did you mention that you saw that
object? Is that on here?
>> Nope.
>> Okay. So, you left that out.
Now, have you looked at that over and
over again?
>> Uh, the video? No, I've only seen it
twice.
>> Oh, really? When's the last time you saw
it?
>> Uh, it's been months.
>> Okay. The last time you saw it, were you
able to tell what that object was in his
hand?
>> Uh, yes. Well, not tell what it is. I
can see there's an object in that left
hand. Yes.
>> And could you, Knowing what you know
about the case today, do you have an
idea about what that object was? It
looks like a a rifle or something to
that effect. A long long object.
>> It looks like a rifle.
>> Like a long object like skinny and long.
You can see it's like almost like it's
covered over something.
>> So you saw the cover, which was the
towel, right?
>> Yes. And and the shape of it is long.
>> Okay. You know,
>> so you can see a towel, but you can't
see an actual
>> I don't know if it was a towel or a
blanket. I don't know what it was.
>> But you can't see an actual gun.
>> No, like an object like a form of a gun.
like a long object.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
At the end of that day, how what time
did you leave the campus?
>> I was probably like 9:00 that night,
maybe somewhere around there.
>> And did you come back the next morning
and work some more?
>> I came back the next morning, yes.
>> And you worked all day the next day? uh
on and off.
>> When you left at 900 p.m., did you or
anyone else know who the shooter was on
that day?
>> Uh, no, not that I know of.
>> And when you came back the next morning
and worked that afternoon all that day,
did anybody you or anybody on that
campus know who the shooter was?
>> Uh, not that I know of.
>> Okay.
So nothing that you found that day or
anyone else to your knowledge
on campus was able to identify who the
shooter was
>> that day? No.
>> Right.
>> Well, during the time I was there. No,
that I knew of.
>> I also want to talk to you about that
giant picture that was showed to you.
Um, do you know
>> exhibit 35? I think
>> yes, it's exhibit 35. Do you know who
took that picture? Where it came from?
>> I do not. Do you know how old it is?
>> Uh, I have no idea.
>> Okay.
And the pictures you were shown,
exhibits one, two, and three that you
got up and kind of talked about and
showed all the buildings and everything.
Um, do you have any knowledge about
where those pictures came from?
>> I guess they were drone footage taken
from a drone.
>> Do you know who was operating the drone?
>> Sergeant Cam Nielson from Provo Police
Department.
>> Provo Police Department. Have you seen
those pictures before today?
>> Uh before today, yes.
>> When did you see them?
>> Uh a couple weeks ago.
>> And that was just in preparation for
testifying.
>> Prior to that, had you ever seen those
pictures?
>> Can I have the court's indulgence for
just a moment, your honor? You may.
One last uh thing I want to clarify. We
heard you testify that Ms. Richards or I
don't know if she's Deputy Richards.
>> Oh, she's a she's a state employee for
the forensic lab.
>> So, Miss Richards,
>> um she is the one who took those
nighttime pictures of this stuff on the
roof.
>> Yes. And it you testified that she told
you that that was what they looked like
that day.
>> Yes.
>> When when did you meet with her?
>> I talked to her on the phone. It was
several weeks ago in preparation for the
trial.
>> So prior to a couple weeks ago, you
never discussed those pictures with
>> Yeah. Because I'd never seen them.
>> Oh. So a couple weeks ago is the first
time you saw them.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> And did you write any kind of supplement
to your report to add on to your report
other than what we've gone through
today? that one report you wrote. Have
you ever written another one?
>> I have not.
>> That's all I have. Thank you, honor. I
tender the witness.
>> Thank you, Miss Nester. Mr. Gernander,
redirect.
>> Just one question. I believe Judge.
>> All right,
>> officer. Bagley, if I could if we could
pull up states exhibit one. Let's do
that.
You've talked about this uh handgun
holster that you observed.
>> Yes.
>> On the grass in the courtyard.
>> Yes.
>> I'm going to ask you if you would
approach the uh monitor when it comes up
and point out as best you can where you
observed that holster. Okay.
Oh, here we are.
So again, the question is is where where
was that uh holstered lying when you
observed it?
>> So again, this is the picture of the
courtyard area facing north uh on the
south end down here, you got different
tiers of grass on this top tier back
here in this area, which is more the
center bottom left of the photo. So it's
going to be the waterfalls on the on the
left side, so more towards the top of it
on the south side by the Fugal building.
That top tier grass is about where it
was at
>> in the middle middle area of that.
>> Yes.
>> Neck by the fugal building.
>> Okay.
>> And that's where I could see straight up
where the line of sight was.
>> Okay. Thank you. Nothing further, Judge.
>> All right. May this witness be excused?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you. Thank you, officer.
Just for the benefit of those in
attendance, you may have noticed that I
drink some water. Please, if you have
water and what's been previously
approved, don't hesitate. Yours, you can
drink. Just don't spill it. Um,
and let's go to the states. Uh, ready to
proceed with your next witness?
>> Thank you, judge. The state calls David
Hull.
>> All right.
like to come forward and be sworn in.
>> You do so that the testimony you shall
give in the case now pending before the
court will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. So,
help you God.
>> All right. If you'd like to be seated
right here
at the witness in the witness seat and
once you're situated, there's a bottle
of water to your left.
And uh if you wouldn't mind after you're
seated bringing that microphone closer
to you so it picks up your voice.
>> All right, council.
>> Thank you.
>> You're ready.
>> Good afternoon.
>> Afternoon.
>> Uh would you please state your full name
and spell your last?
>> David Hall. H U L L.
>> And are you employed?
>> I am. Yes.
>> Who are you employed by?
>> Uh I'm employed by the Department of
Public Safety. And
>> how long have you worked for the
Department of Public Safety? I'm in my
12th year.
>> Are you uh are you a peace officer?
>> I am. Yes.
>> Are you postcertified?
>> I am. Yes.
>> When did you receive receive your
certification?
>> Uh 2015.
>> And since that time, has your
certification remained intact? In other
words, has it lapsed or been taken away
or anything like that?
>> No, it's been continuous.
>> You uh I think you said you're in your
12th year. Did you Did you already say
that? Your 12th year with the DPS. Uh,
have you worked for any other law
enforcement agency besides the DPS?
>> No, just the state of Utah.
>> What is your current assignment with
Department of Public Safety?
>> Currently positioned as an investigative
sergeant at peace officer standards and
training.
>> Was that your assignment at SE in
September of 2025?
>> Uh, no it was not.
>> What was your assignment then?
>> I was uh under the State Bureau of
Investigations uh major crimes division
as an investigator.
>> Okay. Is is SBI an acronym or an acronym
that's commonly used to describe the
State Bureau of Investigation?
>> It is. Yes.
>> I can refer to it as the SBI and we're
all on the same page, right?
>> Yep.
>> Okay. Uh how long were you with the SBI?
>> Uh a little over seven years.
>> And what uh what exactly did you do?
What was your assignment with the SBI?
Uh
>> I spent just under a year in the alcohol
bureau um and uh and the undercover
unit. And then the remainder of that
time was with major crimes. major
crimes. What What did that entail?
>> Uh predominantly investigating uh crimes
that are considered to be major in
nature. Um predominantly violent crime,
including homicide, sexual assault, uh
in some cases uh fraud cases, uh kind of
covered a whole gambit of of things, but
predominantly
violent crime. And and throughout your
career with the DPS, have you uh done
any training related to murder
investigations specifically?
>> Yes, I have.
>> And could you just briefly describe what
that specific training entailed?
I've done um internal and external
courses um around uh lead homicide
investigation,
officer involved critical incidents, uh
child deaths and unexplained deaths in
children, aquatic homicide,
um and then uh just continuing
investigations related to homicide
itself. And and throughout your uh
career with DPS, have you either played
a role in or led uh a homicide
investigation?
>> I have. Yes.
>> How many do you think?
>> Um either directly or indirectly? I've
probably been involved in approximately
40 or so.
>> And is that throughout the state of
Utah?
>> Yes, we we assist throughout the state
of Utah.
>> Were you working September 10th of 2025?
>> I was. Yes.
And uh did you work shifts? Did you work
a certain shift that day or how does it
work at the SBI?
>> Kind of work 24/7, 365, but
predominantly uh Monday through Thursday
uh office hours.
>> Okay. On that day, were you asked to
respond to the campus of Utah Valley
University?
>> I was. Yeah, I was. Uh I was at the
office in Taylorville when I was asked
to respond down to Utah Valley
University.
>> Okay. And what did you understand was
going on at UVU that day?
>> Uh I I didn't know much. I I had been
told that uh there was some kind of an
event and an individual had been shot.
>> Did you have a name?
>> Uh someone had told me that that Charlie
Kirk had been shot.
>> At that point in time, were you familiar
with Charlie Kirk?
>> I was not. No.
>> Okay. Did Did you end up responding? So
when you found out that there was an
event that it was Charlie Kirk that had
been shot, that that was while you're
still up in Taylor'sville at your
office? Yes, we hadn't been asked to
respond at that point. Um, another agent
in the office showed me a video of the
shooting and I I went back to work
because we hadn't been asked to respond
at that point.
>> At some point though, were you asked to
respond or directed to respond to Utah
Valley?
>> Yes, we were. We were asked to make our
way down to the university to provide
any kind of assistance that was needed.
>> Okay. And do you recall who directed you
to to come down to Utah Valley?
>> I believe it was Lieutenant Jensen.
And is is that something responding to a
scene like this uh on a report like
that, is that something that's done
frequently uh within the the SBI?
>> Yeah, SBI functions as a as a
supplementary investigative division for
really anybody in the state who needs
it, whether it's a smaller local agency
that just needs additional resources. Uh
we often respond with the crime lab to
help process crime scenes. Um but but it
would be normal for us to be called out
to assist another agency.
>> Okay. So so we understand correctly when
you were first directed to come down to
Utah Valley, you were just coming down
to to give whatever help you could you
could provide.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. That eventually changed.
>> Yes. Yeah. My assumption was we were we
were responding to assist process a
crime scene essentially.
Prior to September 10th, 2025,
how familiar were you with the the Utah
Valley University campus?
>> Not very. I think I maybe had been there
once before. H
>> how about from September 10th onward?
Did you become more familiar with the
campus?
>> Became a lot more familiar with the
campus. Yes.
>> And and in what way or how?
>> Um both in in walking the campus and and
looking at the the incident scene. um in
viewing surveillance video of the campus
and the surrounding areas and and just
my general involvement in the
investigation, I became a lot more
familiar with the buildings, uh the the
amphitheater and and the surrounding
area and the campus itself.
>> All right. And we'll we'll come back to
that here in a moment. Uh who else
responded to UVU from the SBI?
>> Um originally
I thought it was just myself and a
couple of others. Um, I remember
Sergeant Falmina, Sergeant Bricker,
Sergeant El Schultz, Sergeant Clark,
uh, Agent Brian Davis, um, and a number
of other agents were were arriving or
were on scene when I arrived there.
>> Do you, uh, do you recall if other law
enforcement agencies responded that same
day?
>> Yes, there was a large law enforcement
presence. um federal entities, I believe
the FBI, the DEA,
ATF, I think some US Marshalss, there
was obviously our state presence and
then there was county and uh city and
local agencies on scene also.
>> So, had all these folks responded by the
time you got here or had they responded
prior to or
>> Some could have been on scene prior to,
some were arriving while I was arriving,
others arrived later. I know there were
several uh forensic uh units from
various entities including the state
crime lab and other agencies.
>> And did you interact with all these
different agencies?
>> You personally
>> uh throughout the course of the the
following few days, probably the
majority of them. Yes.
>> I think you related that originally uh
the SBI uh was directed to come down
just to see if you could help. Is that
fair to say? Yeah, that was all I knew
when I left the office was that go down
and see what services what what what
what can you do to help?
>> And I asked you earlier if that role
changed and I I believe you said it did.
>> So, let's talk about that. How did your
role change from what you initially came
down to do to whatever it evolved into?
Uh, having been on scene for a little
while, there were some conversations and
discussions that took place and I was
informed by my lieutenant that um,
myself and uh, agent Davis would be
taking lead on the investigation on
behalf of the State Bureau of
Investigations.
>> So, the SBI was going to be the lead
investigative agency,
>> correct?
>> And you were going to be the lead case
agent?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Along with agent Davis. Okay.
What does it mean to be the lead
investigator or the lead case agent?
>> Uh, depends on the situation, but
predominantly you're responsible for
um kind of directing the investigation,
coordinating information that that is
coming in. Uh, typically scenes are
fairly chaotic initially. So, you're
trying to process as much information as
possible and make as much use of the
available resources that you have.
um kind of an organizational role would
probably be a good way to describe it.
>> Okay.
>> So you you played an active role in
organizing
>> uh in coordination with with the
administrations of all of the agencies
that were on scene. Yeah, we were trying
to coordinate efforts and and get to
pertinent information as quickly as
possible.
>> Do do you recall whether assignments
were made at least with the SBI agents
that responded with you? Yeah, we have a
a core group uh within major crimes that
were assigned specific tasks.
>> Okay. And and do they include the agents
that you mentioned just a minute ago?
>> Uh yes, I believe so.
>> So each one of those agents with the SBI
were given a specific assignment.
>> Yes, with with the information we had,
uh the agents were assigned to do
specific things.
>> And do you remember specifically what
assignments were were were given to who?
Yes, Sergeant Falmina was asked to
coordinate with the the state crime lab
and the responding crime scene texts to
uh manage and process any identified
crime scenes. Uh, Sergeant Mark Bricker
was put in touch with uh UVU's
uh surveillance and operations team to
start working through any available
footage or information that we had that
had been recorded.
Uh, Sergeant Clark was uh tasked with um
the area canvas uh around the the campus
area uh looking for information or or
any available information from the
immediate uh area around campus.
Sergeant El Schultz was working with the
the SIAK and and other administration to
try and manage the flow of information
that had started to occur.
You said that uh initially when you
showed up things were were a bit
chaotic.
>> Yes.
>> Did that have something to do with all
the different agencies that had
responded?
>> Yes. And I think initially there was
still some uncertainty as to whether we
were we were working with an active an
active shooter or or an active crime
scene. The campus is spread over a large
area and so so getting that um deemed to
be safe is quite a process and involved
a lot of people.
>> Gotcha. Do do you know if the the campus
was um
deemed safe eventually?
>> Eventually, my understanding is the
campus was locked down and secured and
and we were able to start getting people
in to start processing crime scenes and
and doing additional things.
>> Okay. But you said uh it sounds like
that chaos eventually subsided. You got
organized and assignments were made.
What what was the first thing that you
did as as lead investigator? Uh it well
it kind of became organized chaos but
but we did have a plan and our priority
was determining whether we had an
ability or a way to be able to identify
who had been involved in the shooting.
Okay.
>> That was our uh that was our primary
focus at that time.
>> Did that include collecting information
that was becoming available?
>> Yes, we were getting a large volume of
information from the general public. uh
phone tips, um people sending videos,
uh analysts were were scrolling through
social media and social sites as people
were posting information onto the
internet. Um
so there were there was a lot of
information coming in, a lot of things
that needed to be processed through and
worked.
>> Okay. Were videos coming in?
>> Yes, cell phone videos were coming in.
Um,
if you imagine there's 3,000 people at
an event and everybody has a cell phone,
there was a lot of information that
people were willing to share with us.
>> Right. Do do you know whether uh you or
someone else with the FBI collected or
received a video from an Amanda Wright?
>> Yes. Yeah, I know a cell phone video was
collected from Amanda Wright.
>> And do you know Amber, right?
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Amber. Do I? Well,
you tell me. Amanda or Amber?
>> Amber. Okay. I apologize for that wrong
first name. Um, do you know who or how
that video was collected?
>> Yeah, I spoke with Miss Wright directly
on the phone to arrange a time to go and
collect that video. Um, unfortunately,
she wasn't available uh that day, but
Agent Davis was able to go meet with her
directly and collect the video.
>> Do you recall what date you you actually
spoke to Miss Wright?
>> Um, if I can refresh my recollection, I
specifically
>> Sure. Let me ask you this before you do
that. Yes, sir. So, you you have in
front of you what? Your police report?
>> Uh I have some notes and a timeline from
my investigation that was part of
discovery
>> and and referencing that that uh
timeline or those notes. Will they help
you recall the date that you called Miss
Wright?
>> They will. Yes.
>> Okay. Why don't you go ahead and refer
to that? Don't read from it out loud.
Just take a minute. Let me know when
you've come across that information and
once you've refreshed your memory. Your
honor, when he's done, may I take a look
at the uh materials as well, please?
>> You may.
>> Um, Miss Wright was contacted on April
7th.
All right, Master, if you like to come
forward.
Yep.
Mr. Sturgil, when you're you go back, if
you wouldn't mind shifting your the the
lectum to my right.
>> Your right.
>> Yes. It just appears when the C camera's
uh focused on you, uh just the way it's
positioned, it's It's you're you're in
front of the witness and and uh we just
want to make sure that
>> it won't go far.
>> Yeah, it's only going to go that far.
Just is that going to be part of
>> I think that that is sufficient. So, all
right. Thank you. I appreciate your
>> just from the Are we still connected?
>> Okay.
>> All right. Let's make sure that Mr.
Sergil is picked up.
>> Okay.
>> All right. You may proceed. Thank you.
>> And if if I can make if I can make a
correction to that, I think
>> Well, let me ask you this first. vote.
>> So, he needs to ask you a question. So,
Mr. Sergil,
>> so you've had a moment to look at your
notes.
>> Did that help you remember the date that
you contacted Miss Wright?
>> It did. Yes.
>> Okay. Um, why don't you go ahead and
tell us what date you contacted Miss
Wright?
>> I contacted her um I think it was April
6th specifically, but uh Agent Davis met
with her on April 7th.
>> Okay. Well, that was going to be my next
question. So, you actually talked to her
on the Was it on the phone?
>> It was. Yes. And and did you arrange a
time for either you or agent Davis to go
get the video from Miss Wright?
>> Yes.
>> Is that how it happened?
>> Yes.
>> And then you didn't go. It was Agent
Davis that went.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Gotcha.
>> And uh what if anything has been done
with that video in preparation for
today?
>> Um my understanding is that some uh
edits were made uh by your office in
order to protect some of the
participants in the video. Okay. But
what um
let me ask you this. Did you or Agent
Davis visit with Miss Wright again?
>> Yes, that was in April and and that was
um where my correction was uh the video
was originally provided to Agent
Mortensson.
>> Okay.
>> So, I miss I misspoke.
>> Okay. Let's let's just let's let's go
back and let's make sure this is very
clear.
>> Sure.
>> Okay. So, um someone with the FBI
collected a video
>> Yes. from from uh Amber Wright.
>> Yes. Agent Mortonson contacted Miss
Wright on October 8th and a video was
provided to him electronically on
October 11th.
>> Okay. And um
now I'll ask the next question. What if
anything has been done either by you or
another agent with that same video in
preparation for today's hearing? We
contacted Miss Wright to arrange a
meeting so that Miss Wright could review
the video and that we could verify
firsthand with her that the video was
what she had taken on September 10th at
the event at UVU.
>> Okay. And and who had that follow-up
visit with Miss Wright?
>> That was Agent Davis. I was not able to
attend.
>> Okay. And you know that happened because
you spoke to Agent Davis.
>> I spoke to Agent Davis and he provided
me with a a written statement um that
Miss Wright had completed.
>> Okay. an 1102.
>> And so you you have you have seen that
written statement?
>> I have. Yes.
>> Okay. And you've read through it?
>> I have.
>> Does that um do you recall whether that
statement was on a form or a piece of
scratch paper? What do you recall?
>> Uh my recollection is that it was on an
official I believe a state bureau 1102
statement. Uh which is a a written form
that is filled out by a witness that
contains the 1102 warning.
And by that, do you mean the advisory
that the statement that's written on
that piece of paper is going to be used
at a preliminary hearing?
>> Yes.
>> It includes that advisory?
>> Yes.
>> Does it also include a warning that if
someone provides a false statement, in
this case, Miss Wright, that it could be
punishable by a class A misdemeanor?
>> It does. Yes.
>> All right.
And what do you recall
uh is the essence of that written
statement from Miss Wright? I mean, what
what does it basically say?
>> Object, your honor, at this point. Um we
want to assert our standing objection to
the constitutionality of allowing in Ms.
uh rights statement um when she is not
here present in court to be
cross-examined. Um we did include those
constitutional arguments in our standing
objection. Um also um this does fall
under the type of document that should
be safeguarded under rule 4-202.02
O2 parin 8 parn F as in Frank
um and and or should be classified as
protected under subsection 5 O as in
orange um because the disclosure could
jeopardize the life safety or property
of the witness. It's also technically
um a victim's um I mean if she's present
under the current theory and the um
information she's technically could be
classified as a victim of the event. Um
so it also should be protected under
that. Um so we would object to it being
read in public. It would not be
admissible at trial in the current
format that it is due to its hearsay
nature. Um, we do think it would
negatively impact our client's right to
a fair trial. And furthermore, I believe
the witness herself has requested that
particularly because the um video
contains images of minor children, which
I know the state has made an effort to
redact, but nevertheless, the uh
reference to the minors I think would
still fall under the protection. And so
for all those reasons, we would object
to that coming out in public and being
discussed in the public forum and being
published in any way. And we object to
it coming in.
>> All right. And so if you wouldn't mind
just restating
the rule that you're relying upon so I
can fully look at your objection. It's
the UCJA,
the Utah
um Oh gosh. Code of Judicial Code of
Judicial Administration. I just blinked.
The Utah Code of Judicial Administration
for Rule 4-202.02
02
parenthetical 8 parenthetical F as in
Frank and or parenthetical 5 and
parenthetical capital O.
>> All right. Thank you. I'm just
>> Yes, sir.
>> getting there. I want to review this
before I hear from Mr. Sturgil.
All right, I've reviewed that. Mr.
Sergil,
just let me let me address I guess a
couple of things. Um, Miss Neester
actually brought up I think both um the
1102 statement that we intend to
introduce and sort of referred to the
video. So, let me address each of those
one at a time. With regards to the 11022
statement that was prepared by Miss
Wright, judge, it was gathered in
compliance uh with the Utah rules of
evidence 1102 specifically
uh subsection B8.
It's uh it's a statement that was
gathered by an SBI agent. uh it was
prepared uh with knowledge of the
advisory that it was going to be used at
the preliminary hearing and it was also
it also included the warning that if a
false statement is given uh it's it's
going to be a class A misdemeanor
judge I I don't know um what additional
foundation you'd like uh well that's
kind of where I was going judge is I was
trying to lay a little bit more
foundation just to introduce that
statement alone I haven't got yet to the
video but with regards to the 112 two
statement. It has been uh collected in
compliance with rule 1102.
Uh as I stated B3 or B8 um and uh as we
all know rule 1102 allows reliable
hearsay as does the uh state
constitution article 1 section 12.
>> So what what exhibit will this be? I I
want to look at it uh not for the
purposes of as a magistrate taking into
evidence but see if it comports with
rule 1102 as as stated because I haven't
seen it.
>> Sure.
>> And I haven't done the analysis to see
if that objection is
>> judge. It is states exhibit 6.1.
And your honor, just for the record, um,
we just want to make a record, too, that
it's difficult for the court to make a
reliability finding when the individual
is not here to be tested and
cross-examined. And for those same
reasons that we list in our standing
objection, we just want to reiterate to
the court that we think it really
hampers you from making that reliability
determination.
>> Thank you.
Anything further, Mr. Sturgil? Well,
just that that 112 doesn't require that,
judge. It doesn't require the witness be
here uh to corroborate the the statement
that they've already prepared. All
right.
All right. I've had a chance to review
STE exhibit 6.1.
Uh taking into note uh what
Miss Nester
UCJA
4-202
02 when referencing the section she did
and I don't mean to interrupt but I I
had not yet addressed that rule. I I
would simply just add to that that that
judicial rule it has nothing to do with
admissibility. It's simply publishing
it.
>> And I'm sorry.
>> So okay. So let me just hear your full
argument.
>> Yeah. Let me realize you want to hear
all that. I thought you were going to
rule on the 1102, but uh
>> Well, I I want to focus on the 112. I
want to keep this clean. So, let's focus
on the 1102 and then and we'll stop
there and I can make my ruling and then
>> uh if there's any objections, I I just
need to take it one step at a time to be
thorough. So, I'll hear all your
arguments about the the 1102 statement.
I'll I'll return to Miss Netor for any
final thoughts and then I'll make my
ruling and then we can move to the next
stage.
>> I appreciate that, Judge. And and I
think what I've I think I have addressed
the 1102 question um as far as
admissibility under rule 1102. I thought
that's what you wanted to rule on first
and then I would address the the
UCGA4-202.02
and if you want me to do that now I can
do that and it's just simply that it
does has nothing to do with
admissibility. Um, it has everything to
do with publishing that and and judge, I
think, uh, if you'll look at that
written statement, I believe Miss
Wright's personal information for the
most part has been redacted.
Other than that, beyond that, judge,
I'll leave it up to your discretion.
>> Well, as it relates to Well, let me let
me take it one at a time. Let's start
with the last statement. What I have in
front of me, plaintiffs exhibit 6.1
has her full information in here.
Address, phone number,
social security number.
>> Okay. Judge, I apologize for that. I
thought we provided a a reducted version
of that.
>> Yeah.
I think I've clarified what's going on
here. I think we provided you with an
unredacted version some time ago. Uh the
version that we have and are prepared to
present today is a redacted version.
>> Could I have a copy of what you're
intending to admit into evidence so I
can consider what's before me?
Yeah, we can bring it up electronically.
We don't have a hard copy of that.
>> All right. I want to make sure that's
not coming on screen. It's just coming
on my screen to review it.
>> All right.
>> Okay. No, that's fine. It's not It's
just for my that I I can look it on my
screen because I'm trying to evaluate.
So, if you just want to put it back on
my screen.
>> All right. Well, um,
so what I'm doing is I'm looking at this
and and just for clarity moving forward,
uh, if there is a particular exhibit,
I'll ask that you provide it instead of
me relying upon here just so there's no
uh, misunderstanding and and I can see
exactly what is being moved into
evidence. I don't want to assume and I
want to do the proper analysis. All
right, sir. And I appreciate that,
Judge. And I apologize. I I understood
that we were presenting redacted copies
today and Okay. There's just been a
little bit of glitch. So, I apologize
for that, Judge.
>> All right. And and Miss Netor, I just
want to make sure that you're looking at
this exhibit as opposed to what I was
just looking at in regards to your
arguments. With this clarification in
mind, any update to your argument or
anything that you would like the court
to consider?
Um, the only other issue I think that
exists with this that I haven't already
raised
is that there's clearly two different
authors in the body of the document. Um,
one wrote something on the very top line
and then it looks like um, Ms. Wright
wrote the rest of it. um which we don't
have any indication of who wrote that
top line and when they filled that in,
if it was before or after she signed the
document. So, I have some concerns about
authenticity with respect to that as
well. And that's all I have.
>> All right. And as I'm determining, it
does appear that the writing is
different. Did you want to lay
additional foundation, Mr. Sturgil, or
provide information for the court?
>> Be happy to do that.
>> Uh do you have in front of you
uh states exhibit 6.1?
>> I do. Yes. Okay. You've heard the
discussion that just took place. It
appears as if there's two different
styles of writing on that form.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. I I I imagine that that you have
the writing that includes the personal
information for Miss Wright and then
directly below that I think there's a
there's a line there that appears to be
arguably writing prepared by someone
else. Is that in fact that is that in
fact accurate that there that is a
different
>> That's correct. author of that writing.
What do you know about that writing on
that first line just below statement of
incident?
>> Uh because we were asking Miss Wright to
verify a specific video. The file name
for that video was written on the
statement in her presence and then that
video with that file name was then shown
to Miss Wright to verify that it was in
fact a video that she had provided to
us.
>> Okay. And so was it you or or SBI agent
Davis that prepared that? Um, based on
the writing, it appears to be Agent
Davis's writing, but it's not it's not
my writing.
>> All right. But but that is the routine
or is that kind of how you commonly do
this?
>> In in this case, because we were
specifically asking them to verify a
specific digital file that had a
specific digital name. Um, and we didn't
want there to be any errors in how that
name was presented. We wrote the file
name on the document for the
individuals. Okay.
>> All right. Anything further, Miss Netor,
with that additional information before
the court makes its ruling,
>> your honor.
>> All right. Thank you.
And having Could you leave that on the
screen for me, please? I was just uh I
appreciate that. And scroll down to the
bottom. I just want to review it one
last time.
All right. And I believe this is exhibit
6.1. Is that correct, Mr.
>> Judge? And I would I would move to admit
6.1.
>> Thank you. So concerning the arguments
made by Miss Netor and uh Mr. Sturgil, I
rely upon rule 1102 as well as the Utah
Constitutional Article 1, section 12. As
I previously mentioned, that final
paragraph,
uh, it states nothing in this
constitution shall preclude the use of
reliable hearsay as defined by statute
or rule in whole or in part at any
preliminary examination to determine
probable cause or at any pre-trial
proceeding with respect to release of
the defendant if appropriate discovery
is allowed as defined by statute or
rule. I have examined this and
clarification was made. The previous
version of this would uh fall a foul of
of having uh identifiable personal
information of Miss Wright. And so that
was red removed. And this one with the
redacted portion of the identifiable
information, personal information for
Miss Wright is before me. And based off
that, uh, states exhibit 6.1 with
redactions is admitted into evidence and
may be published.
>> Thank you, Judge.
a agent hold that that statement that
was prepared by Miss Wright, what what
does it state with regards to uh the
video that you show you showed her that
day or I guess Agent Davis showed her
that day?
>> It states that she's confirmed that she
did review the video and that it was um
a true reflection of the video that she
took on September 10th, 2025.
>> And does she identify who's in that
video in her statement?
>> Uh herself and her two young children.
If we could just have a clarification on
the court's ruling. So,
I understand the court overruled and
published and I accept the ruling, but I
thought under the court's previous order
that the media was not going to film
exhibits.
Um,
and they are filming the ones that are
on that screen. So, I guess I just need
to clarify that, your honor. I'm sorry.
>> No. And I appreciate the clarification.
is important. What I what my ruling when
we came back from break was if you're
objecting specifically to the exhibit
and then to the exhibit being published
in the courtroom and then the exhibit
being published which can be captured by
media if that's not specifically
addressed
it I am going to allow it. So I didn't
hear a specific
um objection to that. So I appreciate
you bringing that up but that's that's
how I'm looking at every single
objection uh just for clarity of the
record.
Thank you, honor. So, just to make sure
I correct the record, we are objecting
the publication of this under the UCGA
rules um for the reasons I said, but I
respect that you've ruled on that. And
in the future, I guess we'll just u make
particularly clear we're objecting to
publication because I do think anything
that's getting on that screen is getting
filmed.
>> Okay.
>> So, thank you, your honor.
>> Thank you, Miss Nester. And Mr. Sergil,
did you want to respond? I mean, it's
it's the uh genie's a little bit out of
the bottle on this particular issue, but
uh any record you wish to make.
>> We're we're simply going to seek to
admit each one of these exhibits uh and
then we're going to leave it up to your
honor's discretion whether to publish
them beyond well to what extent you want
to publish publish them.
>> All right. Well, I I would prefer
argument on on on this issue from both
sides. I I I don't this is the burden of
the state. So I I don't want to exceed
my lane by just assuming. So I'll leave
it to you to make the argument
uh what uh what you're requesting.
the um sorry about that.
>> So before you're moving on, Mr. Sergil,
as it relates to this, I want to put
this to bed and then we can move on.
>> Are you are you were you requesting for
it to be published on? So the three you
moved it into evidence, which I
approved. uh it isn't moved into
evidence, but I didn't hear anything in
regards to publishing to the courtroom.
And then lastly, publishing uh which it
would be captured by the the camera in
the background in the back.
>> Judge, we we believe these these are
public documents, so we would ask they
be published both to the audience and to
the public at large.
>> All right. Well, I given that that we've
we've gone past the gate on this one, u
it's been published, right?
>> But um I'll I'll think we're all on the
same page in regards to how objections
may be made in how the court is going to
consider it so we can move forward.
>> Thank you, Mr. Sergil. Thank you.
>> Have you um have you personally watched
uh Miss Wright's video?
>> I have. Yes.
>> Right. And what is depicted in that
video?
Uh it's a view of Miss Wright's position
in the crowd at the event on September
10th.
>> And um absent the the written statement
from Miss Wright, could can you at least
recognize the location that's displayed
or depicted uh in this particular video?
>> Yes, it's the amphitheater at uh at the
Utah Valley University where Mr. Kirk
was doing his uh event.
>> Okay. But on your screen,
>> do you see anything on your screen yet?
>> Just the very beginning.
>> It's there now.
>> It's there now. Do you recognize what's
depicted on your screen right now?
>> I do. Yes.
>> What is that?
>> Uh in the background is the hold of
flags. Um, and then you have the the
gazebo under which Mr. Kirk was
presenting his event from and then the
crowd between where Miss Wright was and
the stage.
>> Okay. But do you recognize what this is
the beginning of?
>> Yes, this is the beginning of Miss
Wright's video.
>> Okay. Ch would move to admit what's been
marked states exhibit 6.1.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Six. I apologize.
>> And to to what level?
Hold on, hold on, miss. I just want to
get the clarification and then I'll
certainly turn to you. So the the levels
of admitting into evidence,
then the next level is publishing it to
the courtroom and then the next level is
publishing it in a way that is captured
by the media. What is your full request,
>> judge? We'd ask that first of all it be
admitted uh that it be published uh here
within the courtroom uh and then that it
also be uh published to the public at
large.
>> All right. And I I'm not quite sure what
this particular video is showing. Could
you lay a little bit more foundation or
profer that what this is?
>> Sure. You you've seen this video, Agent
Hall,
>> correct?
>> What's depicted in this video?
>> Uh the crowd and the beginning of Mr.
Kirk's presentation to the the audience
in the amphitheater at UVU on September
10th, 2025.
>> Okay. Um,
does it does it depict Miss Wright?
>> Uh, I believe towards the end of the
video it scrolls back and Miss Wright
shows the people that she's with at the
event and herself. Yes.
>> Right. Is there So, is there any act of
alleged violence in this?
>> No, there is not, judge, but
there is not.
>> Okay. I just needed that clarification.
Miss Nester, I'll turn to you. I just
wanted to make sure I understand the
full scope of this exhibit and then hear
from your objection if any.
>> Your honor, with respect to admission,
we object to its admission on the
grounds that it's not properly
authenticated. Is Miss Wright herself is
not present and um for all the
constitutional reasons we raised in our
standing objection, we object to that.
Um, as far as its publication,
um, we object to its publication. Um, it
definitely is something that in its
current form, without her here, would
not be admissible in any place other
than a preliminary hearing. Um, and we
feel like this would really impinge on
Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial.
And so, we're asking it not be
published. It's certainly if the court
does publish it that it's certainly not
be filmed.
>> Thank you, Mr. Sturgil. Any response?
>> Judge, rule 901 addresses authenticating
or identifying evidence to satisfy the
requirement of authenticating a document
or I guess authenticating a piece of
evidence. Uh the proponent, which in
this case is the state, must produce
evidence sufficient to support a finding
that the item is what the proponent
claims it to be. And then the rule goes
on to explain or provide examples of uh
how uh this rule can be satisfied. And
at the very top uh under subsection B1
is testimony of a witness with
knowledge. Uh that goes on to say that
uh testimony that an item is what it is
claimed to be uh satisfies this this uh
this uh authentication rule. Judge, you
have an 11:02 statement prepared by the
person who actually
caught uh these images on her her camera
or on her phone and uh and so judge I
think that alone sufficiently
authenticates the document and and then
even further than that you have uh agent
pull who has reviewed the video himself
and authenticates it at least with
regards to location.
>> Thank you. as it relates to
admissibility of this exhibit. I believe
this is states exhibit six. Is that
>> It is judge. All right.
>> I'm sorry to interrupt. Can I add one
more thing just for the record?
>> Um
in per for purposes of publication
question um under UCJ4-202.02
02 parin 4 parin R as in Richard
photograph, film or video of a crime
victim are designated as private court
records. And I do think that based on
what the state has previously uh
referenced, um they are perceiving that
everyone in the audience is a potential
victim and so we think it shouldn't be
published under that rule.
>> Thank you, Mr. Sturgil. on that final
point
>> and judge I appreciate that argument
from Miss Nester um and and we don't
necessarily disagree but to that end to
protect uh who we believe is is a victim
victims uh in this video I I believe
their faces have been blurred out.
Oh, I see. I
>> Miss Nester, have you
>> think it's only the minor children whose
faces are blurred out, not Miss Wright,
if I'm not mistaken, unless it's been
subsequently altered
>> my recollection is they've all been
blurred out.
>> All right, let me I I need to view this
again. Uh so, let's just put it on my
monitor. Again, I'm just trying to make
sure that in order for make a ruling on
this, I need to view it. So, let's put
it on my monitor. play it without any
sound.
Okay. To I my understanding is the
prosecution has control of this exhibit.
So what I'm asking is that the sound be
turned off if there is any and just go
ahead and play it and it's only on well
it's on all the parties monitors because
I all I want you all to view it because
that can go directly to as you've
mentioned Miss Nesser
uh whether it it's possibly admissible.
So, let's go ahead and play that.
All right. Thank you.
Based off what I've watched, there was
some blurring of faces, but not of all
the faces. And so I'm going to rule that
it is admissible.
>> Sure. I'll I'll wait until all parties
are ready to proceed.
So, anything further? I just want to
make sure.
>> Did you had a chance to watch that?
>> I did. So, I'm ruling that it is
admissible into evidence. Again, taking
in consideration the analysis uh the
courts talked about
regards to 1102s and this particular
piece of evidence as it relates to the
1102 video. Oh, the 1102 statement uh
6.1
and uh I'm going to allow it to admit it
into evidence. And
because the faces of uh the alleged
victims are not all obscured, there are
some that are visible. uh it's not going
to be published to in court monitor and
obviously not to uh to be filmed by uh
the media. So the court will receive it
into evidence. The court will watch it
again right now and then we can continue
to proceed.
>> Very good. Thank you, Chief.
>> So if uh to the state if you would like
to play it again for me, I'm viewing it
as it relates to
consideration as the magistrate.
This is sounds like an issue that's
going to come up again. I represent the
news media. Can I be heard on this
issue?
>> Yes.
>> Um the
I just wanted to address it. I've tried
to be quiet. I just wanted to address it
now because it's going to keep coming
up. It sounds like the classification
rule that Miss Netor is citing and that
your honor uh was just reading
is not about in court exhibits. That is
classification for records in the court
file. So it is a fundamentally different
thing when we are in a public proceeding
and the state is presenting an exhibit
that you are relying on and the public
is being denied the chance to see it.
That is that is a fundamental
um violation of the right of access and
it can it's a qualified right and I
recognize that but that's not the the
ruling that you just made. you're just
ruling based on the code of judicial
administration which doesn't have
anything to do with when something is
presented in a public proceeding. So
while I recognize there are certain
things where I I understand understand
that you were going to make an exhibit
by exhibit um uh evaluation based on
certain exhibits that may you know be uh
somewhat may cross the the heavy
threshold of being so prejudicial that
they cannot be shown in public. That is
not this. And so just I just wanted to
make clear that the things that are in
rule 202 are not when when it is
presented in open court as an exhibit
for you to rely on. The public is
entitled to see what you're seeing so
that they can understand what your
decision-making process is. And so and
this one it doesn't sound like this
sounds pretty anodine to me. You know
it's just it's not even depicting the
shooting. I just wanted to clarify that
the classification issue about when you
know we're filing things with the court
and we say like this you know maybe we
file a motion to classify that's not the
decision that you're making today. The
decision you're making today is the
state is presenting something to you.
You're watching it. You're making a
decision based on it and the people in
the gallery have the right to see that.
Whether you allow EMC of it is a
different question. Um, and we we think
that the EMC should be allowed to for
reasons that we've briefed, but I do
think that it at least should be
published to the courtroom.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, your honor.
>> To the parties, do you wish to respond?
>> We'll submit it.
>> Well, there's other I'm sorry.
>> Hold on. Okay. So,
>> we'll go to Miss Netor first and then to
the state.
>> No, your honor.
Mr. Sturgil, the only other additional
observation I'd make is with regards to
this video and this video only, um, the
state doesn't believe that the defense
really has standing, uh, to to make an
argument behalf of the victims in this
case.
>> All right.
All right. based off what's been
presented uh in in recognizing the
argument from the media. I I see the
differentiation
um
and and how they were differentiating
the rule that was cited versus uh what
was presented. So, I'm going to go ahead
and rule that this may be played in the
courtroom but not be captured on video.
So, uh, to the camera operator, I just
want to make sure that it's going to be
playing on that, but I don't want it
captured. I appreciate the patience of
the parties as we were going through the
many layers that need to be addressed on
uh, exhibits such as these. So, we'll go
ahead and once that's ready to be
played, uh, let's go ahead and do that.
That's a lot of people Utah,
you know how it works.
>> Thank you. And that concludes
exhibit six.
>> Correct. Thank you, Mr. Sturgil. You may
continue.
agent hold, did you or any other SBI
agent collect additional video?
>> Uh, yes, there were other videos
collected. Okay.
>> What additional video did you collect?
>> Um, uh, cell phone video from, uh, Mr.
Phillips was collected.
>> Okay.
>> And do you know who
uh or how that video was collected?
>> Yes. A Agent Schultz made contact with
Mr. Phillips uh September 29th
of 2025 and that video was provided to
him and subsequently in preparation for
the proceedings today um myself and
agent Davis met with Mr. Phillips um on
April 6th and he completed an 11:02 and
went through the same process as Miss
Wright. The only difference being on
this occasion that because he is a
minor, his mother witnessed it and also
signed the statement.
>> Okay. So, you personally reviewed uh Mr.
Phillips's video with Mr. Phillips.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And you had him prepare a written
statement.
>> Yes. Correct.
>> Again, uh on this written statement, are
there two different authors?
>> Yes, I believe uh in this instance, it
was myself that wrote the file name on
the form.
>> Okay. And so you wrote what what part of
the statement did you write?
>> Just the name of the file that we were
asking Mr. Phillips to verify.
>> Okay.
>> I'm going to have exhibited on your
screen what's been marked states exhibit
7.1.
And this should just be for agent hall.
That's on my screen.
>> Is it on your screen? Do you recognize
what that is?
>> I do. Yes.
>> What is that?
>> The State Bureau of Investigation 11:02
form completed by Mr. Phillips.
>> Okay. And did you gather that from Mr.
Phillips?
>> I did. Yes.
>> And again, does this statement include
the advisory that is going to be used in
lie of his testimony at prelim?
>> It does. And does it also include a
warning that if uh he makes a well the
author makes a false statement that it
could be punishable by uh being charged
with a class A misdemeanor?
>> It does. Yes. Okay.
>> Anything about this exhibit look
different than the day you collected it?
>> Uh no.
>> Just the state would seek to admit uh
exhibit 7.1.
>> Miss Netor.
>> Thank you, your honor. We would object
to the admission on the grounds that
this video does in fact show a closeup
view of the shooting of Mr. Kirk um and
grievous injuries um in very stark
relief. Um and because of that we are
particularly concerned about our
constitutional claims we have made and
our standing objection in terms of our
ability to get a fair trial if this is
uh public published. And um I think
again we have the same issue with the
court you know being in a position where
you're having to make a reliability um
determination without the opportunity
for this individual to be
cross-examined. Also, I do think the
fact this is a minor that um completed
this form um does make it protected.
He's also potentially a victim um under
the same theory that has been stated for
Miss Wright. Um and under the um
um
under the UCJA acts um for the same
reason the UCGA rules um for the same
reason these should be protected private
court records um in private means it
shouldn't be played to court and it
shouldn't be played to the public
through the media. Um so we would object
to its admission, we would object to its
publication and we would object to its
filming. Thank you. Any final response,
>> there let me address um well there's two
things here, right? Uh let me address
first the 11:02 statement. Judge, I
believe again that this statement was
gathered in compliance with rule 112B8.
Just check. Um
and the agent has explained that
although Mr. Phillips is a minor, his
mother was present and that explains I
believe he said the second signature on
the form. Uh the uh with regards to uh
publishing it the 11:02 statement that
is judge we believe again uh the
presumption is this is a public record
um and that uh it should be not only
admitted but published uh here in court
and also published so the the uh media
can record it. Um
with regards well do you want to address
the 1102 and then we'll I'll move on to
the video.
>> All right. So, we're we're staying
focused on the 1102. Any final response,
Miss Nester?
>> No, your honor.
>> All right. Thank you. As it relates to
the 11:02 statement and uh to the state
uh representative who is displaying it,
could you scroll down? I can only see
the top half of this.
All right.
and just go to the very bottom so I can
look at the totality of it. This is 7.1.
All right. uh based off what's before me
on the states exhibit 7.1 I find that it
is admissible under rule 1102
and uh to the
um
Utah constitution article 1 section 12
to that paragraph I have referred to
previously and so it is admitted into
evidence and um
Mr. Stir, remind me. Were you requesting
for it to be displayed? I'm again
focusing on 7.1
>> right in
>> 7.1. Judge, with regards to the video,
we believe it's admissible. It's been
authenticated properly.
>> Hold on. Hold on. I'm not talking about
the video. I'm talking about 7.1
publishing it in the courtroom versus
publishing it on uh to be captured by
the media.
>> We we think that it's pres the
presumption is it is a court record. We
believe in its redacted form. Uh we
believe it should be published uh all in
all three areas.
>> All right, Miss Nester, any final
thoughts?
>> No.
>> All right,
we're going to go ahead and grant the
publishing of uh plaintiffs exhibit 7.1
in court and that the media may capture
that.
Let's go ahead and do so.
Scroll up. Slowly
scroll down.
>> All right,
you may proceed.
>> Does it Did you admit exhibit 7.1?
>> It is admitted into evidence and it was
public.
the um Have you personally watched Mr.
Phillips's video?
>> I have. Yes.
>> Okay. And what does it depict?
>> Uh it's it's a graphic video. Um Mr.
Phillips was positioned towards the
front of the crowd and it does depict
the the moment that Mr. Kirk is shot.
Okay.
>> And independent of the 1102 statement
prepared by Mr. Phillips, you watching
that video, do you recognize at least
the location of uh this video?
>> I do. It's it's consistent with the
event that Mr. Ko was presenting at UVU
on September 10th, 2025.
>> Okay. At this point, the state would
move to introduce uh or would move to
admit what's been marked state's exhibit
number seven. Uh we would simply ask
that it be admitted. Uh we would ask
however that it not be published beyond
that
>> is necessary
>> due due to the graphic nature and the
sensitive nature of the video.
>> All right.
>> So as to the admission the same issues
that we raised as to the 1102 we would
raise as to um the difficulty of
authenticating when the individual is
not here present um and all the same
concerns um that we raised about the
1102 itself. your honor.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Uh considering the
>> I'll I'm sorry. May I add one more? I
apologize. And also under rule 403, we
think it's um more prejuditial than
proative and we would raise it for that
reason as well.
>> Any final response, Mr. Sturgeon? No,
your honor. All right.
>> And this is exhibit seven. Is that
correct?
>> Correct. Exhibit seven, judge.
>> All right. I will admit exhibit seven
into evidence based off the foundation
that's laid uh the 1102
is tied directly to this and so for
admission purposes it is admitted. I am
not going to uh authorize publication in
the courtroom or uh obviously through
media but I will have it played on my
screen
and so I view it. Um and uh I just want
to make sure and please council given
the graphic nature of it please guard
your screens uh because I believe we all
should be viewing this. This is evidence
and
I want to make sure that you all are
seeing what I see to ensure that that is
accurate and it's a fair representation
of the exhibit that you are familiar
with. So, whatever you need to do, I'll
give you a moment. Uh, and if you could
just give me a thumbs up if you're ready
to proceed. Again, I want to
act in a way that is dignified and
respecting uh the rights of all persons.
And for those reasons, I just want to
make sure we are safeguarding to ensure
this is not captured.
All right. Do defense ready to proceed?
>> Yes, sir.
>> All right. To the state.
>> Yes, sir.
>> All right.
Go ahead and let's play uh exhibit
seven.
Is there sound?
>> All right. Let's make sure that Thank
you.
Thank you. That concludes playing of
exhibit 7.
You may proceed.
>> Thank you. Judge agent hold any more
video did you that you collected or
either you or another agent with the
SBA?
>> Yes, we were able to collect video. Um
TPUSA had a videographer
uh visual impulse um who was taking
coverage of the event and they provided
video to us that they had captured on
September 10th of 2025.
And do you know who or how that video
was collected from Visual Impulse?
>> Yeah, Mr. Farnsworth originally
provided, I believe, a flash drive to
Lieutenant O'Brien with one of the local
agencies.
And a short time after that, on
September 10th, he provided um
downloadable versions, electronic
versions to Agent Mortonson.
And um an 11:02 was collected from him
on May 6th of 2026. So an 112 was
prepared by someone with visual impulse.
>> Yes. Terrell Farnsworth was the
individual that prepared it and in
preparation for this, I used to spoke to
him personally regarding that statement.
>> And do you know what his association is
with Visual Impulse?
>> Uh I believe he's the owner operator
or the director of the the company.
>> And then who collected that 112
statement from Mr. Farnsworth?
>> Um it was Agent Mson who collected it.
>> Okay. Okay. And you know that because
agent Mson told you or
>> he provided it to me. Um and then as I
mentioned I subsequently spoke to
Terrell Farnsworth personally regarding
his statement.
>> Okay.
Have you had a chance to look at Mr.
Farnsworth's 1102 statement?
>> I have. Yes.
>> Okay. And again, does that statement um
include an advisory that any statement
that he provided would be used a
preliminary hearing in lie of his live
testimony?
>> Yes.
>> Did it also include a warning that a
fault statement would uh potentially be
punished by a class A misdemeanor?
>> It did. Yes.
>> Okay.
I'm going to have exhibited on your
screen what's been marked states exhibit
8.1.
Let me know when that comes up.
that's come up.
>> Um I think it's a single page, is it
not?
>> I believe it is.
You see that?
>> Yes,
>> you do recognize that
>> I do. Yes.
>> Okay. And again, that is what
>> it's the 11:02 statement that was
provided to me um completed by Mr.
Farnsworth from Visual Impulse, who is
the videographer for TPUSA for the
events that they do. Okay.
>> Judge, the uh state would move to admit
uh states exhibit 8.1.
>> Miss Nester.
>> Thank you, your honor. Um
at this point, we renew our objection.
This is hearsay. Um the statement is
hearsay. We have constitutional concerns
for the reasons we raised in our
standing objection. Um we also would
like to cross-examine Mr. farms with
about uh whether or not and to what
extent these um videos may have been
altered in any way. It is clear that
clips were m being made out of the
larger videos because he sent even his
own statement says he sent larger videos
and this is just a small portion of
them. So obviously someone made clips
and we don't know who, we don't know
how, we don't know what they did. Um and
for those reasons and the reasons and
understanding objection um we would
object to the admissibility of it and as
well the um
I don't have a redacted version of 8.1
but I assume there is one
um there is personal information on this
one. Do you have a red? Okay. I don't
have that one. All right. Um and we
would object to publication just on our
concerns for fair trial. um the same
issues.
>> Yeah. Gotcha.
>> Yeah, I think so. Thank you. Um and for
all those reasons, we would object to
its um admissibility, its publication,
and its um ability to be filmed by the
media. Your honor,
>> Miss Nester, I just wanted to check. Did
you get a copy of the redacted?
>> I was just handed it. Um
>> I just wanted to make sure that you had
copies.
>> Thank you, your honor.
>> So, okay. Thank you. Mr. Sturgil, would
you like to respond?
>> Sure. Judge, thank you. With regards to
admissibility of the statement, judge is
I think foundation has been laid that
this statement was collected in
compliance with Utah rule of evidence
1102 subsection B8. It uh it constitutes
reliable hearsay. It's a statement
that's been made by a declarant that's
written and it's under oath or not under
oath but pursuant to a notification of
the declarant that a false statement
made is punishable. I think there's been
foundation to support that. In addition,
judge article 1 section 12 of the Utah
Constitution makes it very clear uh the
state at preliminary hearing can rely
upon reliable hearsay.
>> All right. Anything further before I
make my ruling?
>> Thank you.
applying the same analysis from the
previous exhibits as it relates to the
written statement under rule 1102
and also under the Utah Constitution
article 1 section 12 in that last
paragraph
I will overrule the objection and admit
uh plaint states exhibit 8.1
let me hold off on that final phrase if
you could scroll down to the state
representative
and Just stop right there. Thank you. I
just want to make sure I fully review it
before I make that ruling.
And if you could continue scrolling down
just go ahead and go ahead and scroll
down to the end. I don't believe there's
anything else but I want to make sure.
Thank you. So I do rule that overrule
the objection and uh
states exhibit seven I'm sorry
8.
is admitted into evidence and may be
published. Well,
>> judge, let me speak with regards to
that. With regards to the 11:02
statement prepared by Mr. Farnsworth in
its redacted form, uh we believe that
the presumption is this is a public
record and that it should be published
both here in court and made available uh
to the public by virtue of the camera.
>> Miss Netor,
>> I just stand on the objection I made
before your honor. Thank you. All right.
Looking at the same analysis is
admissible under rule 1102 as well as
article 1 section 12 of the Utah
constitution. And being that the the
uh person's identifying information is
redacted and not viewable. I'm going to
overrule the objection, the standing
objection, and have it published both in
court and may be published uh by the
media.
So, let's just get it situated. And what
I'll have you do to the representative
of the state, uh, pause on this screen
and then
in 10 seconds, scroll down to the full
text portion and then 10 seconds later,
just slowly scroll to the remainder of
the document. Thank you.
All right, you can continue.
>> Thank you, judge.
>> Well, hold on. She's still going through
it. She's going to show
>> you're talking.
>> Well, I I should have clarified. Thank
you.
>> All right. And that concludes uh states
exhibit 8.1, the publication of that
document.
Mr. Sturgil,
>> I just think I appreciate that.
>> Asian Hull, have you personally so the
the video that's referenced in Mr.
Farnsworth's 1102 statement, have you
watched that that visual impulse video?
>> Yes.
>> And what is depicted in that video?
>> Uh, it's a
view from the cameras that Visual
Impulse had established at the event. um
actually looking out from the stage into
the crowd. Um it too is graphic in
nature and shows the moment that Mr.
Kirk is shot.
>> Okay. Does does it also show Mr. Kirk
throwing hats out into the crowd?
>> Do you recall?
>> Uh my recollection serves Mr. Kirk used
to do that at the beginning of his
events and I believe the video does show
him uh engaging with the crowd prior to
becoming seated on the stage. Okay.
Judge, at this point the state would
seek to admit what's been marked state's
exhibit 8. Um,
with regards to publication, judge, it's
our position that it not be published
here in the courtroom and that it not be
published so that the cameras can
display it.
>> Thank you, Mr. Sturgil. Turning to Miss
Nester,
>> your honor, we would just renew our
objections to authentication for
admissibility purposes under 901 um for
the reason that I mentioned in the 1102,
which is, you know, prepared these
clips. We don't know who. We don't have
that person here to cross-examine in
terms of what it what if anything was
edited. And um for that reason, we think
it can't be authenticated. and we object
to its submissibility and our standing
objection for constitutional grounds.
>> Thank you.
>> Just one moment here.
Judge, would you like me to respond?
>> Yes, please.
>> Just with regards to authentication,
uh again, the state must produce
evidence sufficient to support of
finding the item is what the proponent
claims it to be. And again, under
subsection B1 is sufficient to provide
testimony from someone um that has
firsthand knowledge or or observed uh uh
well has firsthand knowledge regarding
the authenticity of that video. You
heard Agent Hull testify that he spoke
to the owner of um and the director of
Visual Impulse. uh Visual Impulse. I
believe it was testified to that they
contract with uh TPUSA
uh to film their events. This particular
video the state is going to or seeks to
introduce as exhibit 8 uh was shown to
Mr. Farnsworth and that is the video
that Mr. Farnsworth authenticates and
says that this is video that was
captured by visual impulse cameras. So
with regards to authentication, I think
the state has sufficiently
uh provided the court with evidence uh
to authenticate it.
>> And this is states exhibit 8. All right.
I'm going to overrule the objection and
admit states exhibit 8 as it relates to
publication citing to article 1 section
28
1A. uh that this is declaration of
rights of crime victims and it states to
be treated with fairness, respect and
dignity and and to those two points of
respect and dignity. The court is not
publishing this in the courtroom
uh nor is it being published obviously
online but the court will watch it in
court and again to the parties. if you
could uh protect your screens. It
however you choose to and then I'll
check to see when we're ready uh and
then we'll have it played. So turning to
defense um is more time needed to Okay,
thank you. Turning to the state to your
screens.
All right, they are indic.
And uh let's go ahead and play this
video only on the monitors. And if
there's sound associated with it, uh the
sound to be played as well, you may
proceed.
And that concludes states exhibit 8. Mr.
Sergil, you may proceed.
>> Thank you, Judge. So, any additional any
additional video that was collected by
either you or another member of the SBA?
>> Uh, yes. the the campus itself, UVU, is
very well equipped with with cameras
throughout and they were willing to work
with us to provide video from those
cameras and so that was collected as
part of the investigation. Also,
>> the uh with regards to the UVU
surveillance video, uh do you know if
video was collected from uh there behind
where Mr. Kirk was seated at the time
that he was shot? Yes, I'm aware that
under the Hall of Flags there is a I'll
refer to it as a breezeway, but a way
for people to move from
uh one side uh into the amphitheater
walking underneath the Hall of Flags and
I know there was a camera situated in
that location.
>> Okay. And and do you know um with
regards to that camera view uh well, let
me ask you this. So that particular
camera view there was surveillance that
was provided to you or another agent
from UVU.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And do you recall who provided
that video to you initially and who
collected it?
>> Um initially
um I don't know specifically for that
video. Uh but I know that whole process
was was overseen uh by Mr. Olsen who's
responsible for that system.
>> Okay. Do you have a first name for Mr.
Olsen?
>> Uh Curtis Olsen. I'm sorry,
>> Curtis Olsson.
>> Okay. And and do you know what Mr. Olsen
or Curtis Olsson's position is at UVU?
>> I believe he's a director.
>> Is it is it his job to basically uh
gather and and forward any video that's
captured by UV?
>> He has a long title, but I think it's
director of infrastructure, but but he
is responsible for that system.
>> Okay.
Uh, with regards to this particular
video, the video from underneath the
Hall of Flags, what, if anything, have
you done with that video in prep in
preparation for today's hearing?
>> Uh, I went specifically to meet Mr.
Olson um have him review the video that
we had and uh again like with the others
I had him complete an 11:02 statement
for us describing his role and verifying
the videos.
Um I did that on actually on July 2nd of
this year.
>> July 2nd of this year.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Give me just one moment.
Actually,
that's I'm going to correct myself on
that if I can refer back to my notes.
>> Okay. Please, if yes, your notes you
have there with you again.
>> Yes.
>> And referencing them will help you
refresh your memory.
>> It will. Yes.
>> Okay. So, don't read from it out loud.
Just look at it. Let us know when you've
refreshed your memory.
>> July 2nd seemed a little bit too uh a
little bit too soon. It was June 24th
when I met with Mr. Olson.
>> Okay. And you personally met with
Mr. Olsson? I did. Yes.
>> Okay. And did you personally review this
particular video, the I guess the hollow
flags video with Mr. Olsen?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
And he prepared a written statement.
>> Uh he did. Yes.
>> And on that statement, was that a was
that a bureau provided statement form?
>> It was. Yes.
>> Okay. And on that statement, do you
recall whether it includes an an
advisory that his written statement
would be used in lie of his live
testimony?
>> It did. Yes. Did it also include a
warning that if he provided a false
statement on that form that he could be
punished uh with a class A misdemeanor?
>> It did. Yes.
Is there something displayed on your
screen right now?
>> There is. Yes, it's 12.3.
>> Yeah, it should be what's been marked as
states exhibit 12.3. Do you recognize
what that is?
Yes. That's the State Bureau of
Investigations 11:02 statement completed
by Mr. Olsson.
>> Does it appear to be in the same
condition as when you collected it?
>> It does. Yes.
>> The state would uh seek to admit what's
been marked states exhibit 12.3.
>> Miss Nester.
>> Thank you, your honor. Um we would again
renew our concern about hearsay um and
our constitutional concerns about that
reason and our standing objection. Also
the concern is that um the individual
basically states they verified the
recordings but doesn't say how. Doesn't
say whether they viewed it. Doesn't say
whether someone else viewed it and told
them whether someone else viewed it and
told someone else who told someone else
who told them. There's just no
explanation. We don't think it's
sufficient to meet your reliability
analysis and we object to admission and
we also object to publication. This is
um
for all the same reasons your honor
>> to the state.
>> Judge um again the state's position is
is that this written statement is
collected in compliance with rule 1102
subsection E8. It is uh a statement
collected with both the advisory and the
admonition. Uh from what we've heard
from Sergeant Hull, uh this individual,
Curtis Olsen, is the person that's is
his job basically to handle uh this type
of information and turn it over to law
enforcement.
>> All right. I'll have uh if the state
representative can scroll through so I
can review it in its entirety
and just stop when the majority of that
handwritten statements visible. Thank
you. Let me review that.
And if you could scroll down to the
bottom of the page.
Thank you.
All right. Under the same analysis for
11:02 under rule 1102 as well as uh
article one section 28 of the Utah
Constitution, I'm sorry, not that's the
wrong one. Under article 1, section 12
of the Utah Constitution, that final
paragraph, uh, the court overrules the
objection and admits states exhibit 12.3
as it relates to publication. Mr.
Churchel
>> judge with regards to publication uh in
this particular exhibit the state's
position that uh the presumption is that
it's a public record and we would ask
that it be published both here in the
courtroom and that the cameras be
allowed to capture it and publish it as
well.
>> Right. Miss Netor,
>> nothing additional, your honor.
>> All right. I note the standing objection
from defense and given the um
the court's previous analysis for other
1102s
uh the court is going to publish it both
in the courtroom and so it be can can be
captured by the media. What we'll do is
the same thing. We'll start at the top,
pause for 10 seconds, and go to this
middle section and we'll pause about 20
seconds because there is a little bit,
it is more dense, and then we'll scroll
down to the very bottom for about 10
seconds, and then that will conclude
that. So, it's now on screen and uh
let's go from there.
All right, you can scroll down.
Okay, if you'd like to scroll to the
very bottom.
Thank you. That concludes publication
of this exhibit.
Thank you, Sergeant.
the um well in in in Mr. Olsen's 1102
statement, he references more than one
video, does he not?
>> He does. Yes.
>> Okay. So, you with regards to the uh the
hollow flags video, um have you have you
seen that particular video?
>> I have. Yes.
>> Okay. And that video, what does it
depict?
>> Uh it's a view kind of uh looking what
would be east under the breezeway
towards the back of the stage where Mr.
Kirk was situated. Um, it shows some
movement behind the stage area and I
believe uh through the gaps you can see
some of the crowd in the amphitheater.
>> I've um I think I've neglected to do
this twice before, so I'm going to do it
right this time. Would you please bring
up
without pushing play?
>> Tell me when you see something on your
screen.
>> It's on my screen.
>> Okay. Do you recognize what's depicted
in that still image?
>> I do. Yes.
>> What is that?
>> It's the area underneath the Hall of
Flags that I referred to as the
breezeway.
>> Okay. And is this the beginning of the
video that Mr.
>> It is. Yes.
>> Okay. That Mr. Olsson provided you.
>> Um.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Judge, the uh the state would seek well
the state asks or seeks to admit exhibit
nine.
The uh with regards to publication, uh
this is another video that due to its
sensitive uh the nature and and the
graphic nature of the video, uh we'd ask
that it not be published here in the
courtroom, nor uh published in any way
that the the media camera could capture
it. And um following your reasoning,
judge, uh out of deference to the
victims and the victim's rights to have
this type of information protected.
Master
Thank you, your honor. We would object
on our standing objection grounds.
Constitutional issues in terms of the um
concern about Mr. Robinson's right to a
fair trial, we agree it should not be
published. We object to its
submissibility.
>> Thank you.
Based off my analysis that I apply
independently to this exhibit, but it
tracks with the previous exhibits, I
find that it is admissible and I will
admit it into evidence. This is states
exhibit I believe nine.
Mr. Sturgil,
>> play it.
>> No, hold on. I'm sorry. This is states
exhibit nine.
>> Right. Correct.
>> All right. As it relates to publication
in the courtroom or by the media, again,
citing to the Utah Constitution, Article
1, Section 281A.
It states to be treated with fairness,
respect, and dignity
and to be free from harassment and abuse
throughout the criminal justice process.
I find that this does apply in respect
to respect and dignity and u the human
experience. I am going to not publish it
in the courtroom, nor will it be
broadcast, but the court will watch it
in open court. And I note uh it is about
How long is this video?
>> Three minutes.
>> All right.
Again, to the parties, if you could just
indicate if your screen is obscure.
Thank you, Miss Nester.
And to the state, are your screens
secure? So, they're not viewable. All
right. Thank you. Seeing Mr. McBride nod
his head. We can go ahead to the state.
Uh, representative, go ahead and play
states exhibit 9. And if there's sound,
if you could activate sound. I'm not
sure if there is.
All right. So, there.
All right. Let's go ahead and replay it.
Just wanted to clarify there is no
audio. So, let's go ahead and restart
it.
Thank you.
Stacey exhibit nine has concluded. Mr.
Surgil,
>> thank you. Judge,
I'm I'm going to ask you just a few
questions with respect to the uh the
very well that video and the very end of
that video which is states exhibit
number nine. The um
uh throughout that video you can see a
banner
um and uh do you recall seeing a banner
that's hanging basically in the middle
of that video?
>> Yeah, I believe that's the rear of the
gazebo.
>> Okay. The rear of this the gazebo.
>> Yeah. And um what gazebo are you talking
about?
>> It's a like a pop-up tent that Mr. Kirk
was sat underneath while he was uh
addressing the crowd.
>> Okay. So, just really quick, where just
to be clear, we're in relation to that
banner that you see depicted in exhibit
9 is Mr. Kirk
>> approximately dead center.
>> Okay.
>> Um he's he's on a stage, so he's
slightly raised in in relation to the
bottom of that banner.
>> Mhm.
>> And then he's seated in the middle of
the stage. So approximately in the
center
>> and how many if you know what's the
distance between the the banner and then
where Mr. Kirk is seated in front of
that banner if I'm understanding you
correctly.
>> I don't know specifically if I had to
estimate I would say 3 to 5t.
>> Okay. So close to that banner.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. I I I also believe towards the end
of that exhibit um well let me ask you
this if you know what what happened to
Mr. Kirk immediately after he was shot.
>> Uh my recollection is that Mr. Kirk's uh
detail his his own security team uh
removed him from the scene um whilst
administering first aid and they uh
conducted what would be called a hasty
transport to uh to Panogus Hospital.
>> Okay. Before you go any further that
that Mr. Kirk being picked up by his own
security is that is that I'm sorry. It's
kind of on the left side. You can see
Mr. Kirk come around the left side of uh
the back of that uh the pop-up tent.
>> And then you can see Mr. K being carried
down the left side of the video under
that breezeway.
>> Okay. And and then you said that he was
uh that there was a quick transport. Is
that the language you used?
>> A hasty transport.
>> Hasty transport. What does that mean?
>> Just they were trying to get him to
medical care as quickly as possible.
Also, I believe he was thrown into one
of the team's vehicles
>> and then transported to the hospital as
opposed to waiting for an ambulance.
>> And I think you already stated, but
let's let's just be clear. Do you do do
you know which hospital he was
transported to?
>> I believe it's referred to as Tempenogus
Regional.
>> Okay. And uh do you know if he was
treated there at the hospital?
>> Uh he was. Yes.
>> Okay. Um do you know whether or not he
was pronounced dead there at the Timogus
Hospital?
>> He was. Yes.
>> Okay. And how do you know that? Uh the
medical examiner had an investigator
that responded to the scene.
>> Mhm.
>> Um and I spoke with him and he informed
me that he was at the hospital when Mr.
Co was pronounced deceased.
>> Okay. And that medical the medical
investigator that you spoke to um do do
you know the name of that person?
>> Uh Bulock I believe officer Bullock. But
if I can refresh my recollection.
>> If it'll help if you have it in your
notes and it will help you refresh your
memory. Go ahead and look at that.
Again, don't read from it out loud.
>> It is officer Bulock. Yes.
>> Okay. and and he is a peace officer.
>> Uh he functions as a law enforcement
officer and he works also for the
medical examiner as a death
investigator.
>> Okay. Uh do you know whether Mr. Kirk
was autopsy by the Utah medical
examiner's office?
>> Yes, an autopsy was conducted by the
medical examiner's office.
>> Do you know when and by whom?
>> Uh yes, it was late into the evening of
September 10th or may even have gone
through into the morning of September
11th.
And do you know who
>> I'm going to refresh my recollection
because of the pronunciation if you
don't mind.
>> If it'll help you refresh your memory,
that'd be great. Again, don't read it
out loud. Look at it. Let me know when
you've done that. And then we'll go from
there.
>> Dr. Guagado, I believe, is how it's
pronounced. G. Uh,
>> you want to spell that last?
>> Yes. Gua J a R.
>> Your honor, if this is not personal
knowledge, we object to the hearsay if
someone told him all of this. I don't
believe this individual was present at
the autopsy. So, we object to any
testimony about the autopsy or what he
was told about it.
>> Mr. Sturgil.
>> Well, Judge, if I could, I'll just
simply lay foundation for the report
itself. And I think this is all
information that's included on the
report.
>> So, as it hasn't been moved into
evidence just yet, I'm not making a
ruling. If you wish to lay more
foundation, that's certainly your
choice.
>> So, you are aware that the medical
examiner's office did conduct an
autopsy?
>> I am. Yes.
>> Okay. And um did you receive a report
from a medical examiner's office?
>> Uh I did. Yes.
>> Okay. Detailing um the the autopsy that
was performed.
>> Uh yes. Um prior to receiving the
report, myself and Agent Davis visited
with the doctor.
>> Okay. You visited personally with the
doctor that conducted the autopsy.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. And then subsequent to that and
did you discuss the autopsy with the
doctor at that point in time when you
were meeting with him personally?
>> Yes. Agent Davis and I had a a fairly
in-depth conversation. Yes.
>> And where did that conversation take
place?
>> At the medical examiner's office.
>> Okay. Do you recall the date and time
that that personal visit took place?
>> I do I don't recall.
>> Okay. Was it was it within
>> It was soon after within within a few
days of the incident
>> of the autopsy.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And and subsequent subsequent to
that visit um did you receive a a report
from that that doctor that you visited
with?
>> We did. Yes. Okay. And that's the Dr.
Guardo that you're trying you're
struggling to pronounce his name. Is
that correct?
>> Yeah, I apologize, but yes, that's who
it is.
>> And uh the report that was sent to you,
um do you recall when you received that
report?
>> I don't recall the specific date.
>> Okay. Um have you reviewed that report?
>> Yes.
Have you reviewed Have you again you
stated earlier that this is not the
first murder investigation you've
worked?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. This is I I take it this is not
the first medical examiner's report
you've received.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. They do the reports typically look
the same?
>> Yes. They're they're in a standard
format that the medical examiner uses.
>> Okay. And this report that you received
>> Yes.
>> from who you believe was the doctor you
spoke to?
>> Yes. that conducted the medical exam.
Um, was there anything peculiar about
that particular report that stood out to
you?
>> No, it appeared to be a a standard form
as used by the medical examiner when
they send us reports.
>> Okay.
On your monitor, exhibit 11,
I'm going to have displayed uh what's
been marked states exhibit number 11,
judge, for identification.
>> Right.
And I believe there's nine pages.
So, let me know when you see that on
your your screen.
>> It's on the screen. All
>> right. What I'd like uh you to do is
just look at this as it scrolls down
through the nine pages
and wait till we get to the very end.
And if you need us to pause or stop or
slow down, let us know. I want you to be
able to look at all nine pages.
Did you get a look at that?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Uh, do you recognize what that is?
>> Yes.
>> What is that?
>> That's uh the medical examiner's report
of examination for Mr. Kirk.
>> Yeah. Do you recall um you don't recall
exactly when you received that?
>> I I don't unfortunately remember the
specific date when I received it.
>> Do you remember how you received that?
>> Uh then provided to us electronically.
>> Okay. Via email.
>> Uh sometimes via email also on disk,
compact disc.
>> Okay.
>> Or
>> And does there appear to be anything in
in the exhibit before you? Uh has that
um report changed at all or does it
accurately depict uh what you received
um initially from the doctor
>> and accurately depicts it?
>> Does the state would seek to admit uh
exhibit 11?
>> Miss Nester,
>> your honor, this is um an expert report
without the expert being present being
offered by an individual who's not an
expert in this field. If they're
presenting him as an expert in this
field based on the limited questions
about his experience in seeing previous
medical exam records, I'd like to
fordire him on his his qualifications to
opine about it. Um, this is u hearsay.
It's highly technical. It should be
presented only through an expert. It
could never come in in trial in any
other way. Um, we submit that it is
hearsay. Um, and to the extent they're
going to ask this individual about any
opinions about it, um, that would be
improper, he's not qualified to do that.
Um and furthermore, we just think that
this is clearly falling under our
constitutional concerns about the
absence of our ability to be effective
to cross-examine to question the we
can't even question the experts um
experience or CV or anything that we
would nor there's some really
>> thank you to the state
>> judge.
This is clearly uh reliable hearsay
admissible under rule 1102 of the Utah
rules of evidence. Um, I would direct
you specifically to subsection B
five.
Um, for purposes of, and I'm quoting the
rule, for purposes of criminal
preliminary examinations only, reliable
hearsay includes subsection five
specifically states medical and autopsy
reports and records. Again, that is
supported by article 1, section 12 of
the Utah Constitution, which states that
reliable hearsay can be relied upon at
preliminary examination in whole or in
part.
>> And to the second parts in regards to
publication,
>> as far as the publication, judge, um we
uh we agree with Miss Netor. Uh this is
a document that does contain very
sensitive information and information
that Mr. Kirk's family would appreciate
uh it not being published. And so
although we seek to admit it, we'd ask
that it not be published here in the
courtroom or that it be published uh in
any fashion or way that the public could
see it by virtue of a camera.
>> Miss Nester,
>> your honor, I just want to point out
that even though 11:02 has a provision
about um exams, I mean the court still
has the overarching mission under 1102
to make this reliability finding, right?
and and it's just completely in a vacuum
being offered by someone who's a police
officer. Um so again, we would just
argue that you're just not it's it's
hampering you from making the analysis
you need to make to admit it and we
object to it.
>> All right. Anything further from the
parties?
>> No, your honor.
>> No, sir.
>> All right. So again relying upon the
analysis
Utah constitution article 1 section 12
as it relates to reliable hearsay and
then turning to
uh Utah rules of evidence rule 1102
B5
specifically notes medical and autopsy
reports and records.
The court is going to overrule the
objection and admit
states exhibit I believe it's 11
>> 11. Yes sir.
>> Citing to Utah Constitution article 1
section 28
dignity uh portion respect and dignity.
It will not be published either in the
courtroom or viewable on media by the
the camera uh for the reasons previously
stated as it relates to uh the video and
so the court will receive it and it is
admitted into evidence
and
that concludes that portion. Mr.
Sturgil, is this a good point to stop to
take our 15inut afternoon break?
>> I think it'd be a great idea, Judge.
I've just got one last question. All
right. With respect to the uh the
medical examiner's report,
>> um agent Hull, uh in that report, uh
does the doctor relate uh cause and
manner of death?
>> He does. Yes.
>> Okay. And in that report, what is the
stated cause of death?
>> Uh it was stated as a murder.
>> And uh manner of death
>> was a gunshot wound to the neck.
>> I object. It's not stated as a murder. I
believe it's stated as a homicide, which
is an important distinction.
>> Just I'll I'll I'll go back and correct
that.
>> All right. So, so I'm going to sustain.
Well, first of all, let me look at the
report. I need to see that section. I
need to be able to draw my own
conclusion. Uh so, okay. I I see Miss
Nester, are you referring to page one of
this report?
>> I'm sorry, your honor. Could you repeat
that? I apologize. As it relates to your
objection for the uh misstatement,
uh are you looking at page one of the
report?
>> Yes.
>> All right. So,
>> your honor, I also need to make an
objection on the best evidence rule,
too. Thank you.
>> All right. So, I'm going to sustain the
objection as it relates to the manner of
death. It does not say murder. Uh but in
regards to the best evidence rule again
under 1102 and the Utah constitution
that permits uh reliable hearsay it is
states exhibit 11 is uh admitted. Mr.
Sergil
agent I'm I'm going to ask you to look
at the first page of uh exhibit 11.
>> No.
>> Yes.
>> You see that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So let me let me ask you again and
you can look at it.
>> Yeah.
>> And would you mind relating uh what the
doctor reports is the manner of death?
>> Yes. I I misspoke. It does say homicide
>> and then the immediate cause of death,
>> gunshot wound of the neck.
>> Nothing further, judge. Well, at this
moment, I think it'd be a great idea
that we take a 15-minute break.
>> Right. We'll go ahead and go on break.
We'll come back at uh 3:25
and resume. uh with this witness at that
time. Court is in a brief recess.
Court is back in session
and noting the presence of council as
well as all the parties. Believe we were
continuing with the direct examination
of Mr. Hull by Mr. um
Sturgil. Mr. Seril, you may proceed.
>> Thank you, Judge.
So, Agent Hull, in addition to what
you've already described, what if
anything else did you do on the 10th of
September, 2025?
>> Uh, primary focus was to identify the
individual who'd been seen on the roof
with the preliminary footage.
And
so there was a a a big effort to review
as much of the video that we had
available to us from both the public but
predominantly from Utah Valley
University in an effort to follow that
individual both forward and backwards
from the time of the shooting.
>> Okay. So So if I understood you
correctly to priority was to identify
the shooter.
>> Yes.
>> And to that end you started reviewing
even more UVU video than you've already
described. Correct. Yes.
>> Okay. Um
uh what if anything else um either did
you do or happened
uh initially
uh that helped you identify who that
shooter was? Uh so there was hundreds of
hours of video that was reviewed but uh
the predominant focus again was on
tracking the individual from the roof
either after the the shooting had
occurred or trying to trace the steps of
the individual prior to the shooting.
>> Okay. And um we were able to do that um
through a combined effort of individuals
and the focus was having uh people
reviewing video identify people who
could fit the the original description
of the individual that jumped off the
roof. Okay. Uh at at that point, so at
this point,
uh approximately how many hours of UVU
video do you think you personally had
had seen or watched? um myself,
you know, may maybe 10 or 20 hours of of
video um being called in to look at
different camera angles and different
views of individuals.
Um but there were a there was a large
team of people reviewing video.
>> Okay.
>> Reviewing video.
>> Yeah. From the VU.
>> Were some of them SBI agents?
>> Yes, correct.
>> And combined, uh how much video do you
think you watched that first day on the
10th?
It it would be in the tens or hundreds
of hours of video was reviewed.
>> Okay. Uh did anything else come along
that that helped you identify who that
shooter might be?
Uh yeah, eventually on the evening of
the 11th um we received word from
uh Washington County that an individual
uh in that area had um reached out to
law enforcement in uh was wanting to
turn themselves in for the incident at
UVU.
>> Okay. And did you at that point in time
did you receive a name from Washington
County?
>> Yes, we did.
>> And what was that name?
>> Tyler Robinson.
with what if anything did you do with
that information? The name Tyler
Robinson,
>> that information was given to our uh
SCAK or our state information and
analysis group and they put together
what would be called a workup. So they
would look at driver's license records,
DMV records to determine
um addresses uh obtain pictures of
individuals and then any associated
vehicles or things like that.
>> So was that done with Mr. Robinson?
>> It was. Yes. Driver's license record was
pulled.
>> Yes.
>> Did that include, if you remember, or do
you know, did that include a photograph
of Mr. Robinson?
>> It did include a photograph of Mr.
Robinson. Yes.
>> How about an address and date of birth?
>> Uh, there was an address and a date of
birth and I believe a DMV record with an
associated vehicle.
>> All right. And that So, that DMV record
did include a vehicle that was
associated with Mr. Robinson.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Um, do you remember uh what the
make and model of the vehicle was that
was tied to Mr. Robinson?
>> The Dodge Challenger.
>> Anything else beyond that that you
remember?
>> Uh, was silver in color and I believe
there were there were two registered
owners of the vehicle.
>> Okay. And who are the registered owners?
>> Uh, Mr. Robinson and then his mother.
>> Do do you recall whether or not a date
of birth was included in that driver's
license information that you got
initially?
>> Uh, yeah. I believe the actual driver's
license record was shared, so it would
have included a date of birth.
>> All right.
Uh, with Mr. uh, well, with Tyler
Robinson's personal information,
uh, were you able to expand uh, your
search at all?
>> Yes. Once we knew uh a vehicle that we
were looking for and we had an actual uh
image of the individual, then we were
able to use that video footage to to try
and track that specific individual.
>> Okay. And and and I'm sorry, let me
clarify. So, when I said expand your
search, I'm I'm referencing uh the UVU
surveillance video.
>> Uh yes, we were able to.
>> Okay.
And were you able to identify uh in that
expanded search
uh or were did you believe you located
that that challenger?
>> Uh we did. Yes.
>> Okay. Uh were you able to uh determine
uh
at what time or times Mr. Robinson
visited the UVU campus on September
10th?
>> Yeah, we were able to establish that uh
Mr. Robinson had been on campus
uh approximately four times throughout
the day. uh twice before the shooting
uh the time of the shooting and then uh
after the shooting later in the evening
into the early hours of the 11th.
>> You um you said that you initially
tracked the shooter forward and backward
>> with with UVU surveillance video.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Uh did you do the same thing with
that vehicle?
>> We did. Yes. Okay. Tracked it forward
and backward.
>> Yes. Using the UVU footage and and
additional information that was
obtained. Yes.
>> And I I believe you said that in total
uh Mr. Robinson visited the UVU campus
four times that day.
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> And and let's just be clear, that's all
based on UVU surveillance video. Is that
fair to say?
>> That's correct. Yes.
>> Okay.
Have you um have you reviewed what's
been marked states exhibit 12.1 for
identification?
>> I have. Yes.
>> Okay. And well, let me before we go
there, um
of of the video that you have personally
watched,
um did does the video include the 10th
and the 11th or just the 10th? Uh the
video I've seen includes the 10th and
then a very small portion I think about
030 of the 11th. Okay. And I think you
said initially you watched about 20
hours of video.
>> Yes.
>> Since that time have you watched
additional video?
>> Yes.
>> UVU surveillance video?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And uh who provided uh the UVU
surveillance video to you?
>> It was part of the collection of videos
that was provided by Mr. Olson and his
team um that we already discussed
previously.
>> Okay.
Of the uh of all the hours of video that
you've watched, um do do you have an
idea of how many hours include
uh Mr. Robinson or his vehicle?
>> Uh just with UVU or
>> just with UVU, I'm sorry. uh just with
UVU
will probably be about 16 hours.
>> And and let's be clear, this is someone
you believe to be Tyler Robinson,
>> correct?
>> Okay. And this person that you've
identified as Tyler Robinson that you've
um been investigating and that you've
viewed in the the numerous hours of
video from UVU, uh would you recognize
that person if you were in the courtroom
today?
>> Yes.
>> Is he in the courtroom today?
>> He is. Yes. Would you point him out and
describe something that he's wearing?
Your
>> honor, we object to um unduly suggestive
in court identification for
constitutional grounds.
>> Do you wish to specify an unduly
constitutional
I'm trying to understand your objection,
so I want to make sure I fully
understand.
>> Your honor, I think there's some and
I'll defer to to to uh Mr. bird if he
wants to jump in. But I believe there's
a a long line of case law that says and
you ask someone to identify the
defendant when they're the only person,
you know, sitting at the table with
defense council that that's unduly
suggestive and taints any uh future or
past um well definitely future
identification. So we object to that
happening in this fashion at this time.
>> Mr. Sturgeon.
>> Well, Judge Agent Hull has testified
that he has watched numerous hours of
video of well, take a step back. He has
he has looked at uh personal identifying
information of an individual by the name
of Tyler Robinson. He's looked at the
driver's license record and he's also
looked at the DMV records and and has
been able to determine what car that
person drives. He's also looked at
surveillance video that he believes
depicts uh this uh this Tyler Robinson.
And uh I've simply asked him if that
person that he has seen
um both in driver's license uh photos
and the surveillance video if that
person is here in the courtroom today.
And I I don't know that that's unduly uh
prejuditial or suggestive. It's the
routine. I I don't know of any other way
to do it other than the way I just did
it. Judge
Well, I wanted to verify the format of
the question. I remembered in my mind,
but uh Miss Nester, was that was that an
accurate portrayal of the question that
was asked?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Mr. Sturgil, anything further before I
issue my ruling?
>> Well, no. Other than Judge, I believe
it's it's worth noting that Mr. Robinson
is in plain clothes.
>> Well,
he's council the bench.
All right. Uh
based off of what's been presented in
court, I I'm not finding that particular
question
uh as previously posed as suggestive. Um
I find for the purposes of this hearing
only that in court identification uh by
agent Hull of Mr. Robinson has been
made. Again, this only relates to the
preliminary hearing and you may proceed.
>> Thank you, Judge.
Agent Hull, have you reviewed what's
been marked states exhibit 12.1 for
identification?
>> I have. Yes.
>> And where did you review that video?
>> Uh, it was provided to me. Um, I
reviewed it on my computer in my office.
>> Okay. And and is that the first time
that you've seen this particular video
footage? this particular version of the
footage. Yes.
>> Okay. So, this particular version the
first time, but have you seen the video
that that
um
that comprises I guess uh exhibit 12.1?
>> Yeah, I have seen the original videos if
if that's your question. Yes.
>> So, so what ex states exhibit 12.1? How
would you describe it? I would describe
it as a a compilation of the video that
we obtained from uh Utah Valley
University during the course of the
investigation
that uh depicts the movements of the
individual I believe to be Mr. Robinson
moving around the campus on September
10th, 2025 into the morning of September
11th, 2025.
>> Did you prepare uh this video
compilation?
>> I did not.
>> Okay. Do you know who did?
>> Uh yes. Utah County Attorney's Office. I
believe Mr. Stuffler is the one that
produced the video.
>> Okay. Do you know Mr. Dler's first name?
>> Kimberly.
>> Okay. Uh what if anything did you do to
authenticate the video uh in this
compilation?
>> I reviewed the video uh to make sure
that it was a reflection of what I
understood the the original videos to
show.
>> Okay. What if anything else did you do?
>> I I I reviewed it. I know that there
were some some zooms and some changes to
the footage.
>> Okay. Did Did you meet with Mr. Olsen
with regards to this particular video?
>> Uh yes, this video was also part of that
original meeting with Mr. Olsen for the
prior exhibit. Yes.
>> Okay. So, at the same time you sat down
with Mr. Olsen and discussed the the the
prior exhibit. And let's just be clear
which exhibit that is.
So I believe the well the 1102 statement
that you gathered from him is exhibit
12.3. Correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> So the same time that you gathered that
12.3 or that that uh written statement
that is stakes exhibit 12.3
you you talked to him about this
specific exhibit as well.
>> Yes. Mr. Olson was shown this exhibit.
>> Okay. And did he include that in that
1102 statement? Yeah, I believe he
specifically referenced the exhibit by
name, stating that it was a true
reflection of the the footage from the
campus. Okay.
>> And let's just go back to what you were
stating earlier. Um, to you it appears
to be a compilation of videos that
you've already seen,
>> correct?
>> That you received as a mass dump, I
guess, for lack of a better term, of you
video. Is that fair to say?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And the the exhibit 12.1,
does it appear to be um the same as the
the raw video that you've seen
previously?
>> It does. Yes.
>> Okay. Are there are there some minor are
there any added additions or anything
different about this particular exhibit?
>> There are some portions of the video
where um a zoom is initiated which
wasn't a function of the cameras. I
believe some specific individuals have
been blurred from the footage and I I
believe there are some red circles to
show poignant information or individuals
within the footage itself.
>> Okay. So, other than the red circles,
the blur and the zoom, uh does it appear
to accurately depict uh what you've seen
in the raw video footage?
>> I believe so. Yes.
on your screen. I'm going to have uh
displayed
an image. Let me know when you see it.
The image is there now. Oh, it's gone
again.
>> Is it there?
>> We're back. Yeah.
>> Okay, we're back. So, do you recognize
what this is?
>> Yeah, this is the first frame of the
video compilation that we just
referenced.
>> Okay. And again, this video uh portrays
what you believe is Mr. Robinson
visiting campus that day.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And is it throughout the day?
>> It is. Yes.
>> And then I believe he said into the
early morning hours of the 11th. Is that
right?
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
the state would seek or would uh move to
admit
uh was been marked states exhibit 12.1.
>> Miss Nester,
>> your honor, we have um
objections to its admissibility.
Um the this is a compilation video that
was put together from a bunch of
different sources by the county
attorney's office. Um this individual
did not create this compilation. Um
can't testify to the um accuracy of the
actual um materials that it was taken
from. And furthermore
um Mr. Olsen himself is just referred to
by Agent Hall. He specifically says
people have altered these recordings.
They've zoomed in when the when the
actual recording isn't zoomed. They've
added little circles to people they want
you to pay attention to. They've blurred
people's faces out. So, I mean, it's
been clearly altered and it's not I
mean, they admit it's been altered. So,
we have real concern about authenticity
of it. Um furthermore um this particular
video should be protected and so that
deals with the admissibility factor as
far as the publication factor of it. Um
the video should be classified as
protected under UCJ
um 202
uh 4-202.02
O2 subsection five J is in jelly bean
and then little I and little double I
because this is going to interfere with
the defense's ongoing investigation with
Mr. Tyler's ability I mean with Mr.
Robinson's ability to get a fair trial.
Um this is basically putting together
photos um that are clear with photos
that aren't clear. putting them all
together in such a format that um it
makes the case that it's all one person
um it would be extremely prejuditial for
people that may ultimately serve on this
jury to watch this video before this
case goes to trial. Um we don't believe
a proper foundation's been laid which
would make it admissible at this point.
So the fact that it would be shown to
the public would be extremely damaging
to the ability to put on a defense at
trial and so we object to its
publication both in the courtroom and to
the media. Your honor,
>> Mr. Sturgil,
>> Judge M. Miss Nester is correct. This is
a compilation of a series of videos. the
um
the uh the videos as detective of as uh
Sergeant Hull has testified to is is a
compilation of raw videos that he has
received from Utah Valley University and
he has not only uh seen this video but
he has seen all the raw footage and by
his estimation or according to his
testimony uh these are all videos that
that are accurate and They depict what
the raw footage depicts other than those
minor additions. Judge, if you refer to
Mr. Olsen's uh written statement, it's
plaintiff's exhibit 12.3. He too um has
reviewed this video and he has also uh
identified uh this video as being
accurate with the exception of those
additions. Uh in his words, it's the
zooms and the red highlights. They
weren't part of the original recording.
According to Mr.
uh uh Olsen, but other than that uh as
he states the same as agent Hull, uh
these videos are accurate and they were
captured by UVU surveillance video.
Do you have a version of this video that
does not have uh alterations such as
zooming or circling? My concern is that
I if the 1102 says what it says about
the videos, these were the videos,
>> right?
>> But then it was altered and typically an
exhibit which has been altered and if it
wasn't done by the person who supplied
the 1102 that that can become
problematic. And so do you have a
version of of this exhibit that does not
have the zooming in or the circling?
Again, I don't know all the alterations
that were made, but that seems to fall
outside the 1102 because you don't have
a person testifying 11:02 saying, "I
made the alterations, right?"
>> And so that that's the concern of the
state of uh what Miss Netor was talking
about as it relates to the state's
evidence. I have that concern about
those alterations. I don't I again I
don't know what when they were made what
they were made how much was was done to
manipulate the video and and I say
manipulate to not saying in nefarious
way but I don't know what the scope of
that is and how much
it deviates from what was the original
form.
>> Well well judge answer your first
question. Do we have a version of this
particular video that has not been
altered? Uh we we don't. Not right now.
Not today. Um,
I guess there's a well there there
there's a couple of things I'd simply
like to point out, judge, and that is is
that we have two witnesses who have
watched the raw footage. And uh, agent
Hull here today on the stand and Mr.
Olsen in the form of his written
statement. They have both said that this
video with the exception of these
alterations accurately depicts uh, the
the video that was captured by UVU
surveillance video. Judge, I will profer
that those changes made to the video
were not done by either. I know who that
person is. We could actually call that
person as a witness if that would cure
that. Um, and we're prepared to do that
if necessary. But, Judge, I I think uh
that
our our burden is to simply
authenticate, you know, what this is.
And it is it it is a video that with
only a few exceptions, alterations that
really don't change the substance of the
video or the content of the video,
they're accurate. They depict what the
cameras captured on September 10th and
the 11th. And we have two people who
have seen that raw footage and they've
explained that's the only difference
between what we have originally in the
original videos and what you're seeing
here today. And the additions I will
submit, judge, were only added to make
it easier
to view.
All right. Anything further from the
parties?
>> No.
>> All right. I'm going to go ahead and s
I'm sustaining the objection. Uh
typically in when exhibits are admitted
to the court, it is without alteration.
If if a party circles an exhibit, a
photograph, that's not the original
format. And I do not have the person who
made the alteration uh an 11:02 to
substantiate that. And what I have is
the original video and Mr. Olsson saying
this is the video minus the alterations.
And we have agent Hull saying this is
the video and there are alterations but
I'm missing a link and and it may be
minor but in in this type of case I want
to be thorough and I want to make sure
that what is minor is still important
and for those reasons I'm going to
sustain the objection and and leave it
to the parties on how you wish to handle
the video in the future. I don't want to
provide guidance either way. Right. But
as it stands today, uh this exhibit
states exhibit
>> 12.1 is not admitted.
>> Okay. Just could I have just one moment?
>> You may
Agent Hull, you testified that there
were four visits to campus that day,
>> correct? Yes.
>> And it the the first three visits um
based on what you have observed
um is your opinion that those videos
were captured by UVU surveillance video.
Is that correct?
>> That is correct. Yes.
>> Okay. the the fourth visit um
well
the fourth visit too was captured by UV
surveillance video. Is that correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Um was there any other video that
was collected uh either on the 10th or
the 11th that um
you believe might be important or
relevant to today's hearing?
Uh there was a large amount of video
that
>> Let me let me I'm going to be a little
bit more specific. Um was there other
than UVU surveillance video? Uh was
there um
any other video that you collected and
and subsequently uh gathered an 112
statement for?
>> Yes, we collected Ring doorbell footage
from the surrounding neighborhoods.
>> Okay. Let me ask you this. Um, did that
include
uh video from
uh
a residence at located at 680 West 925
South Orum.
>> Uh, yes. That that's in the Horseshoe
area. Yep.
>> Okay.
That's in Oram,
>> correct.
>> And close to campus?
>> It is. Yes.
>> Okay. And what can you tell us about
that video?
>> It was a Ring doorbell uh video that was
provided
that showed um a vehicle consistent with
the one we had identified as belonging
to Mr. Robinson
>> um parking in front of the residence
across the street.
>> Okay. And what can you tell us about the
timing and the well the timing of that
that parked vehicle?
Uh if I recall um that vehicle parked
approximately
038 hours uh on the morning of the 11th.
>> Okay. So 038 hours. What time is that to
regular people?
>> Uh just after midnight
>> at 12:38 a.m.
>> in the morning. Yes.
>> Okay. Um
so how did this video come to your
attention that you're talking about?
This doorbell or whatever? Uh this
footage was um obtained as part of the
canvas of the area that was conducted um
as part of the investigation.
>> Were you able to identify uh the owners
of that residence?
>> Yes.
>> Where that video was collected from?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And do you know who it was
collected from and by whom?
>> Uh it was uh Mr. and Mrs. Noble.
>> I believe Agent Davis collected the
video directly from them.
>> Okay.
And and do you know what date it was
collected?
Uh, if I can refresh from my notes.
>> If if referring to your notes will
refresh your memory, go ahead and look
at that. Don't read it out loud.
I don't have the specific date, but I do
know that myself and Agent Davis
returned to the address
um as we had done with previous videos
>> and had the owners of the video verify
that it was from their system and we did
have them complete an 1102 statement
which would be dated.
>> Okay. Do do you know? So, let's let's
talk about this this what does this
video look like?
>> Uh, it's a nighttime view looking from
the front porch of the residence across
the street. Okay.
>> And and what about that video? Why was
this particular video significant to you
or why do you think it was related to
this case?
>> Um, we know from the from the UVU
footage that um the person we believe to
be Mr. Robinson had an interaction with
law enforcement. Mhm.
>> And a short period after that
um the vehicle uh comes to that house
and some additional evidence that was
collected um from from cell phone data
and things indicated that Mr. Robinson
was in the area and we were able to
locate the footage of his vehicle on
that door Ring doorbell camera
>> or at least what you believe is his his
vehicle.
>> The vehicle we believe to belong to Mr.
Robinson. Yes. And and is there
something about this particular video
and this cap and this this I guess
vehicle that was captured that leads you
to believe that it was Mr. Robinson's
vehicle?
>> Yeah, the vehicle has um very distinct
wheels. Um I won't say that they're
wholly unique. Um but in terms of the
video footage that we were reviewing,
the wheels on the vehicle are are fairly
unique and stand out on the video
footage.
Okay.
And so again, this is video that you
received early on in the investigation.
>> Yes.
>> And then in prep in in preparation for
the preliminary hearing, you went back
out and you you met with someone about
this video.
>> Correct.
>> Who specifically did you meet with about
this video?
>> Met with Mrs. Noble.
>> And what did you do with Miss Noble?
>> Uh we did what we had done before. We
had a specific file that we wanted her
or files that we wanted her to verify.
Mhm.
>> The the footage itself is is broken
into, I believe, 10-second segments.
>> So, we had specific files that we had
her view and confirm that they were
actually from her system.
>> Uh, those were written on the 1102 as
they have been before.
>> Okay. And who wrote who wrote those file
names on this particular statement?
>> I believe it would be my handwriting on
the 1102.
>> All right. What what did you do next? uh
we had uh view the videos and then
complete a statement verifying the the
authenticity of those videos on an
11:02.
>> Okay. Was this also prepared on a state
bureau form?
>> I believe this was on a state bureau
investigations form. Yes.
>> And in this particular form on which
Miss Noble provided her statement. Does
it have the advisory that it would be
used in lie of her testimony here today?
>> It does. Yes.
>> Does it also contain a warning that if
she gave a false statement, she would be
punished or pun it's punishable by a
class A misdemeanor? Correct.
>> Okay.
I'm going to have displayed on your
monitor what's been marked states
exhibit number 13
for identification. Let me know when you
see that, would you?
>> I can see that.
>> Okay. And I'm going to have um my
assistant scroll through that slowly.
Okay.
Do you recognize that?
>> I do. Yes.
>> What is that? It's
>> the 1102 that myself and Agent Davis uh
collected from uh Miss Noble. Okay.
>> And it appears Does it appear to be in
the same condition as when you collected
it?
>> It does. Yes.
>> This is a copy, right? Yes.
>> Okay.
And the personal identifying information
appears to be redacted. Is that right?
>> It has been redacted. Yes.
>> Okay. It it wasn't redacted when you
collected it, right?
>> No. No. The original form was not
redacted.
>> So other than the redactions, it appears
to be in the same condition as it was
when you collected it.
>> That is correct.
>> State would move to admit exhibit 13.
Miss Nester,
we renew our concern about um
unconstitutional hearsay being admitted.
Um we also have the same concerns about
um
the fact that the miss agent Hull
amended this himself and there's no
foundation as to when he filled that in
if it was before or after she signed it.
Um and due to all those reasons, we
object to its admission
and object to its publication as well.
>> Mr. Sturgil,
>> judge, again, it was collected in
compliance with rule 1102 of the Utah
rules of u evidence specifically
subsection B8.
It's in writing. It's on a form. It
includes both the advisory and the
warning.
And um it was collected uh by agent
Hull. Uh it's also uh collected in
compliance and being introduced as
reliable hearsay uh which is lawful to
do uh here in Utah under the state
constitution article 1 section 12.
>> Do you wish to lay more foundation about
when the statement was written whether
it was before it was signed or not? I
>> I could do that judge. I appreciate
that. Yes. Um, agent hold, do you recall
when you collected this written
statement from Miss Noble?
>> Yes, it was in April.
>> In April, do you know what day?
>> April 6th, I believe.
>> Okay. And you collected it. Did you go
to her home? I think is is that what you
said?
>> Yes. Myself and Agent Davis went to the
residence.
>> Okay. And did you sit there while she
prepared it?
>> I did. Yes.
>> And did you witness her sign it?
>> I did. Yes.
>> Okay.
At this point, I'd move to admit
uh exhibit 13. All right. And to the
state representative, could you scroll
down?
Okay.
All right. Pursuant to the Utah Rule of
Evidence 1102 and article 1, section 28,
I'm sorry, article 1, section 12,
uh, which allows for reliable hearsay.
Uh, I'm going to move it into it's going
to be admitted into evidence over the
objection of uh defense. I I note in
particular that states that I confirmed
that the above files were taken from our
Nest doorbell videos and are accurate
and
and and and right before that statement
is the notations that uh were allegedly
made by agent Hull. And so for those
reasons, uh, court finds proper
foundation has been laid and that this
exhibit in its entirety is
admitted into evidence. As it relates to
publication, I will authorize
publication in the courtroom and by the
media if they so wish to capture it in
that form. Again, following the same
format, uh have it on that first portion
of the screen uh for about 10 seconds
and then scroll down to the written
portion for about 15 seconds and then
scroll to the very bottom to ensure that
the full exhibit has been displayed.
All right, that concludes the
publication of states exhibit 13. Okay.
Thank you, Judge.
the um
the video that you took with you that
day when you visited with Noble or Miss
Noble. Um had you had you previously
well
you've stated that the videos that you
showed the Nobles were actually more
than one video.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And I believe you said they were
like 10-second clips
>> if I recall correctly.
>> Short clips. Okay. And and you showed
Miss Noble all of those uh all of those
videos that are identified in that
statement.
>> The ones shown on the on the statement
were shown to Miss Noble. Yes. Okay.
>> Have you had a chance to review what's
been marked state exhibit number 12.2?
>> Uh yes.
>> Okay. And uh when did you have a chance
to review that exhibit?
I believe that was reviewed
last week, I believe.
>> Okay.
>> With with yourself.
>> Okay. And and does that video is is it a
single video that you watched?
>> Uh no, I believe it's four separate
short videos.
>> Okay. And as as far as and I understand
that, but as far as 12.2 is concerned,
um what does that exhibit consist of?
I chose um the vehicle believed to be
driven by Mr. Robinson arriving in front
of the residence, an individual exiting
the vehicle and moving away from it,
followed by an individual returning to
the vehicle and unlocking it. Um and
then it shows the vehicle a short time
later um starting and leaving the area.
>> And and those are the videos that you
showed, Miss Noble.
>> Yes.
12.
>> What I have displayed on your monitor
was spin marks plaintiffs or states
exhibit 12.2 for identification.
Let me know as soon as you see should be
a still image.
>> I can
it's there.
>> Do you recognize what's depicted there?
>> Yeah, this is the view looking
what would essentially be west across
the street from the Nobles residence.
>> Okay. at at 12:38
a.m. I guess or 038.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And um
what uh what is depicted in this? I
think you've already described that. So,
judge, I would move to admit exhibit
12.2.
Miss Nester,
>> your honor, we renew our objection to
allowing in the evidence without the
sponsoring witness. I do have some
concerns because I'm not totally sure if
this compilation if this is a
compilation or if this is just one of
the 1 2 3 4 5 at least six videos they
took from the um nobles. So, if we could
have that clarification, I think that
that concerns me about authenticity that
I don't understand if this is just a
portion or if this is the whole thing or
is this is all of them or none of them.
And uh for those reasons, we object to
the admission and to publication.
>> Thank you, Mr. Sturgil.
>> There's that. That's a good point. Um
and I'll ask additional questions before
I seek to admit it. Uh agent, this
particular video, you've described
taking several videos to Miss Noble and
having review them.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. this particular exhibit 12.2, have
you watched it in its entirety?
>> Yes.
>> Does it consist of uh uh either some or
all of those videos that you showed,
Miss Noble?
>> It does. Yes.
>> And is it a single video? Is it a
compilation? Uh that is to say, or is it
uh uh four different videos?
>> Or a number of different videos?
>> Be a number of short videos sequenced.
>> Okay. A number of short videos in
sequence.
>> I believe that's how this one plays.
Yes.
>> Just again, I seek to a minute.
>> Anything further from the parties?
>> All right. Given uh my previous rulings
on
exhibits, I applied the same analysis
and find that states exhibit 12.2, two,
I believe, is admitted over the
objection and may be published in the
courtroom and by the media if so chosen.
>> Okay. So, before we play this video, um,
again, what is it that that leads you to
believe that this is Mr. Robinson's
vehicle?
Um the shape of the vehicle can be
clearly seen as it pulls up and the
distinctive wheels on the vehicle also
>> and uh what well let's go ahead and play
it.
>> Is there any sound associated with this?
>> There there is judge but it's it's night
sounds. It's crickets chirping and um
>> Okay. I just wanted to see if there was
I just wanted to see if there was sound
or not. Okay.
>> All right. You may play the video.
So, in the first part of that video,
what do you see?
>> Uh, the vehicle we believe to be driven
by Mr. Robinson pulling up and parking
in front of the across the street, but
in front of the residence.
>> Okay. And then in the next video, what
what do you believe is displayed in that
video?
>> Uh, there's an individual who gets out
of the vehicle. Um you you can hear the
door close and then that individual
moves away from the front of the
vehicle.
There's actually
two reflective panels on a dumpster and
you can see the individual past those uh
reflective panels.
>> And in the the last of those series of
videos,
>> um the the second to last one, the
individual comes back across those
reflective panels to the vehicle,
unlocks the vehicle, and gets into it.
And then in the last video um the
vehicle is started and the individual
drives away.
Just one moment.
>> Yes.
Could
we approach?
>> You may.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to
take a 10-minute break for the attorneys
to confer and come back at uh well
roughly 4:30. So, court is in recess.
All right.
Court is back in session.
We ended uh with the parties and the
attorneys discussing
how would we like to proceed.
Judge, I think um I just have a couple
of questions for uh Sergeant Hole uh to
fish finish out the day. I think we're
in agreement that uh once uh we've
sorted out these few questions uh we
we're all in agreement that we want to
break for the day. Is that right, Miss
>> Nester?
You
>> Well, I sure
>> um
>> you may proceed with your questions and
we'll take it from there.
>> All right.
Uh agent Hull, I I asked you earlier
after you you had testified about all
the video that you've watched and video
that you believe uh depicts uh Mr.
Robinson from the UV surveillance and
that combined with the driver's license
and the and the DMV records. uh whether
or not you believe that that person that
you have seen in the video and on the
driver's license record is in the
courtroom today. And I believe your
answer was yes.
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> And then I asked you uh if if you
wouldn't mind pointing him out and
describing something that he's wearing
and I don't believe that I allowed you
to do that.
>> Okay.
>> Would you do that right now? Your honor,
just for the record, we would impose an
objection based on the 14th amendment
for due process due to an unduly
suggestive in court ID. Also, we believe
there's a lack of foundation um
establishing his ability to interpret
the um surveillance video. And based on
that, we would object.
>> All right. I note that well, did the
state do you wish to be heard on what
was just stated?
>> Well, judge, I think I think we had this
discussion. And I think you ruled on
that specific objection and then after
you you ruled, I just neglected to come
back and follow through with the
question and the answer. That's my
recollection of the the bench meeting.
>> I believe I uh stated for the purposes
of this hearing that identification by
agent of Mr. Robinson was made. I could
be wrong, but um
>> well, and I just wanted to clarify that,
judge, because there was some question
about whether that in fact did happen.
And so, um, if that's your recollection
of of what happened and is, if you're
willing to put on the record that Agent
Holt has identified the defendant, I
think we're done.
>> Does the defense want to be heard?
>> Of course.
Well, your honor.
>> Well, if for the for the benefit of the
record and for thoroughess, if you wish
to reask that question, uh you you
certainly well, we we can see what
happens.
>> If I could, Judge, I'd like to.
Would you please point him out and
identify something that he is wearing?
>> Yeah, I believe that Mr. Robinson is uh
between Miss Nester and other council
wearing a gray suit, jacket with a dark
tie and a light colored shirt.
>> As I would ask that the record reflect
that agent has identified the defendant.
>> I have no I mean I made my objection
already.
>> Okay. I just wanted to check.
>> No, thank you. All right. For the
purposes of this hearing, I find that
agent Hull has identified Mr. Robinson.
Again, this is only for the preliminary
hearing. You may proceed, judge. I think
for today uh with Agent Hull, um we're
we're done for today. Uh we'd ask that
at this point we take a break until
tomorrow.
>> All right. So, are you saying that
you're you're you're going to recall
agent? Well, we're going to resume with
Mr. Hall tomorrow morning.
>> Tomorrow morning. And let me explain to
to and I was going to explain this, but
let me explain why. Judge, our intent is
to prepare an un
an original version of the video that
has been in dispute today uh without the
circles, without the blur, and without
the uh the zooming in. And our intent is
to introduce that tomorrow as a
different exhibit.
Um and we just can't prepare that in the
next hour or so. So, we're going to need
this evening uh to to prepare that
exhibit. And we'd like to return with
that. Judge, what I would also suggest,
well, let's I guess let me get your your
take on that, judge.
>> All right. Does the defense wish to be
heard about ending for the day? We have
about 19 minutes until 5:00. What is the
defense?
>> Your honor, we're happy to accommodate
the state on that.
>> All right. So for today, uh, Agent Hall,
you may step down and, uh, we'll resume
with your testimony tomorrow morning.
>> Anything further, Mr. Sturgil?
>> Well, there's just one other thing, and
it's it's it's a suggestion. Um,
>> agent, can you wait just one second? I'm
sorry.
>> Go ahead.
>> I'm sure Miss Nester may have a position
with regards to this, but judge, we we
would invite you um to review the
exhibit uh that we've been talking about
today.
It is 12
>> one. We suggest that you look at it
between uh today and tomorrow because
our intent is uh to seek to admit the
the version where it doesn't have the
circle or the blur or the zoom in. And
if that is admitted uh we do intend to
to introduce that exhibit 12.1 as well.
And I think it would be helpful if you
saw that in advance. and uh you could
compare that to the the version that
doesn't have
the circle, the blur, and the zooming
in. Um I I I would ask that you do that.
Um I don't know if Mester has a a
different opinion about that, but I
think it would be helpful in determining
whether or not that particular exhibit
12.1 is admissible.
Miss Nester,
>> I don't have anything to add to that. I
I defer to what the court prefers to do
on that. Um, I do have another matter
before Agent Hull's release that I do
want to address with the court, but I I
don't have any concern if the court
wants to look at it in advance. It's
kind of a a little bit of a long video.
I think it's just about five minutes,
maybe. It's not very long. So, if you if
you want to wait until tomorrow, it's
not going to slow the matter down very
much, but it's up to the court on that.
>> All right. I appreciate the parties. Uh,
what I'm going to do is I'm going to
wait until it's properly before me and a
motion has been made for either of the
videos and then I'm I'm happy to
entertain the motion to review both of
them. uh or or however the parties I I
don't want to issue a pre-ruling, so
I'll wait till it's properly before me
and I can take it from there. Being that
it's about 5 minutes, um I I'm not not
too concerned about how much time is
needed, I also want to be thorough, so
I'll I'll wait till it's brought before
me and we can address it from there and
turn to Miss Nester as it relates to
your request.
>> Um thank you, your honor. Your honor, I
I recognize that agent Hull is the case
agent and is working with the state in
preparing for this. Um,
but he is still on the stand and I would
ask that he be instructed that he can't
discuss his testimony even though he's
the case agent. I don't think it's
proper for him to to discuss his
testimony while he's excused for the
night.
>> Mr. Sturgil,
>> it's not a problem. Judge.
>> All right. So agent, uh, from this
moment on until we come back in court,
you're instructed not to discuss your
testimony with anyone, uh, as you are
still on the stand for all intents and
purposes and we'll, uh, if if the state
recalls you this tomorrow morning, then
we'll proceed. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> All right. May this witness be excused
>> for now?
>> For today. All right. Thank you, Agent
Hall. Anything further from the parties
or do either party need the benefit of
the record before we adjourn?
>> No, your honor.
>> Not from the state judge.
>> All right. Noting uh neither party
wishes to
wishes the benefit of the record. Court
is in recess until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow
morning.
>> All right.
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
