The defense sought to block the video from being published, saying that they believe it would play a “big role in the trial,” and the publication of it in the courtroom “would seriously impact our ability to get a fair trial.”
The preliminary hearing of Tyler Robinson entered its second day on Tuesday, with the Provo, Utah courtroom being shown never-before-seen footage of a person believed to be Robinson moving around Utah Valley University's campus on the day of the shooting. Robinson has been charged with killing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, and the preliminary hearing is set to take place all week.
Investigator David Hull
Tuesday’s hearing began with continued testimony from David Hull, a Utah Department of Public Safety Peace Officer Standards and Training investigator who was working as a State Bureau of Investigation’s Major Crimes Division investigator at the time of the shooting.
His testimony began with the airing of footage showing what is said to be Robinson’s movements throughout campus both before and after the shooting.
The defense sought to block the video from being published, saying that they believe it would play a "big role in the trial," and the publication of it in the courtroom "would seriously impact our ability to get a fair trial."
An attorney representing the news media said that the people in the courtroom "have a right to know what the court is viewing, so that they can understand how you’re making your decision. This seems like a very important piece of evidence, it doesn't seem like there is a basis to keep the people who are in the courtroom today from understanding why it's being introduced." He argued that there needs to be "a really good reason" for such media being published in the courtroom to not be published in the media.
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/2074518061504221273?s=20
Graf ultimately allowed the footage to be displayed both for the courtroom and for the media.
Hull was shown the video, describing the movements of the person who is believed to be Tyler Robinson throughout campus, beginning in the morning of September 10. He returned for a second time to campus, again ahead of the shooting, where the person was seen taking position on the roof of the Losee building before Kirk was fatally shot, and once more in the area in the early hours of September 11, when an officer stopped the vehicle believed to be owned by Robinson.
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/2074524619508183134?s=20
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/2074527033166590396?s=20
During cross-examination conducted by defense attorney Kathy Nester, she questioned him about the preservation of the scene and a bullet found on another rooftop.
Hull said he believed there was an unfired billet that had been found on another building that was not the Losee building. He said the area that bullet was found in had not been considered part of the crime scene because the bullet "was accounted for as an ejected cartridge from an officer who had cycled his rifle." He said he could not recall the type of bullet or the type of gun the bullet came from. He said he did not believe any bullets or casings were recovered from on or near the Losee building.
Nester asked whether it was fair to say that as of the moment Robinson surrendered to authorities in Washington County, he and his team did not know who the shooter was, to which Hull said that a person of interest was identified, but the shooter remained unidentified at that time.
Regarding Robinson’s surrender, Nester asked, "is it your understanding that the individual they used to facilitate Mr. Robinson turning himself in was someone known to Mr. Robinson personally that had been connected to law enforcement?"
Hull said the person was known to the family, and said he had become aware that the man had been one of Robinson’s Boy Scout leaders. Upon being questioned by Nester, Hull said it was his understanding that Robinson had turned himself over to authorities voluntarily at the sheriff’s department in Washington County.
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/2074569337336201678?s=20
Statement from David Englehart
Before the next witness, the state sought to admit an exhibit that was an 1102 reliable hearsay statement from pastor and TPUSA Board Member David Englehart. The defense objected, saying it was not relevant to the issues at hand.
Richard Novak argued that admitting the exhibit into evidence would create confusion, saying "it’s going to create chaos" for the future jury pool. "For this court to make a ruling that Mr. Englehart’s opinions about religion, about TPUSA’s views on religious matters, that Mr. Kirk’s views on religious matters are in any way what this case is about is going to create significant confusion" and interfere with Robinson’s rights to a fair trial.
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/2074567907623776403?s=20
Novak took issue with the statement from Englehart centering around Turning Point USA’s mission and Charlie Kirk’s religious beliefs, saying that the state had sought a victim targeting enhancement regarding political expression, not religious beliefs, which is a separate subsection. Graf ultimately allowed the exhibit to be provisionally admitted.
Agent Jennifer Faumuina
The next witness to appear was Jennifer Faumina, a sergeant in the State Bureau of Investigation. On the day of the shooting, she was assigned to oversee the crime scenes and physical evidence.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
She said she was aware of a screwdriver that was recovered from the roof of the Losee Center, and that a Mauser bolt-action rifle wraped in a towel had been recovered from a wooded area near campus. She said both the screwdriver and towel were provided to the FBI for testing.
She was shown the FBI’s DNA testing report, which included the towel and the screwdriver. The report was signed by Amanda Bakker, who later testified as a defense witness. She said she received that report from the FBI.
She was instructed to read out two sections of the report. "Male DNA was obtained from item 7(1). Item 7(1) was interpreted as originating from two individuals, one of whom is Twiggs. The DNA results from item 7(1) are 1.7 octillion times more likely if Twiggs and T Robinson are contributors, then if Twiggs and an unknown unrelated person are contributors," she read. The next section read, "Male DNA was obtained from item 8(1). Item 8(1) was interpreted as originating from two individuals, one of whom is Twiggs. The DNA results from item 8(1) are 30 quintillion times more likely if Twiggs and T. Robinson are contributors, than if Twiggs and an unknown, unrelated person are contributors." Item 7(1) was the towel, while 8(1) was the screwdriver.
She said DNA evidence was obtained from Lance Twiggs, Robinson’s transgender lover and roommate, from law enforcement officers through a buccal swab. She said Robinson’s DNA was obtained the same way.
Faumina’s testimony is set to continue on Wednesday.
FBI forensic examiner Amanda Bakker
In order to accommodate her schedule, defense witness Amanda Bakker, a forensic examiner working in the DNA casework unit of the FBI lab in Quantico, was called out of order to the stand in the middle of Faumuina’s testimony. Bakker conducted DNA analysis on evidence provided to the FBI by Utah authorities.
Bakker testified on technical questions from defense attorney Michael Burt regarding DNA evidence and testing, including sequences, degradation over time, FBI policies on testimony, how no testing has a zero error rate, and more.
She was questioned about the towel and screwdriver, and whether those two items had experienced degradation of DNA evidence. She said there was "some degradation," with the towel experiencing less degradation than the screwdriver.
After extensive questioning regarding the science behind DNA, its components, and testing, the prosecution objected, with McBride saying, "I think we’ve gone beyond the scope of a preliminary hearing" and into material "that’s not necessary for the probable cause determination." Graf overruled.
Burt questioned Bakker about her original assessment that the towel had contained DNA from three contributors but later changed it after review. When McBride objected to the line of questioning, Burt said it was relevant because "It does go to the reliability of her testing here." She said the change came after additional testing.