Tyler Robinson defense claims introducing statement on Charlie Kirk’s religious beliefs into evidence would confuse future jury

Deputy Utah County Attorney Ryan McBride said that the exhibit was a "self-authenticating 1102 statement" issued by Englehart. Richard Novak, arguing for the defense, objected to the exhibit’s admission, saying it was "unclear" who exactly wrote the statement because it was in the third person, and taking issue with the content of the statement.

Novak said the statement involved "basically four paragraphs." Paragraph one, he said, spoke on Turning Point’s mission and tax status, and went on in paragraph two to talk about Kirk’s involvement with the group. "None of this is unknown information," Novak said, adding that he was "unsure what the relevance" was, "and I guess actually what I should say is I don’t believe there is any relevance of any of this information."

He prefaced before moving forward that he wasn’t trying to "derogate, criticize, question Mr. Englehart's beliefs." He said the statement included "Mr Englehart’s opinions about a branch of Christianity, his opinions about a portion of the Bible, he quotes the Bible, and he talks about Mr Kirk’s religious beliefs."

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/2074567907623776403?s=20

Novak said the prosecution has sought victim targeting enhancements for multiple counts in the case, saying that Robinson "intentionally selected Mr. Kirk because of Mr. Robinson’s belief or perception regarding Mr. Kirk’s political expression."

He said he was concerned that the statement from Englehart "goes far beyond the scope of what would be admissible, if the state has it, to prove that Mr. Robinson targeted Mr. Kirk because of Mr. Robinson’s belief or perception concerning Mr. Kirk’s political expression." He said that religious beliefs and political expression are under different subsections.

He said the victim targeting enhancement also focuses on the state of mind of the defendant, saying that the prosecution needs to present evidence that isn’t about what Kirk believed, but "what was in Mr. Robinson’s head, if anything, about selecting Mr. Kirk because of Mr. Kirk’s expression."

Novak claimed that receiving the document into evidence "is going to create confusion, 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.

Responding to Novak, McBride began to read a portion of the document, which was objected to by Novak, who asked that McBride be admonished. McBride said that the judge, under court rules, is required to consider evidence before determining admissibility. "How can you determine whether an exhibit is admissible without knowing what is contained in that exhibit?"

Novak said it was not necessary for McBride to read the document aloud in open court, with McBride saying he couldn’t do his job as an attorney without being able to refer to the exhibits. The defense sought to close the hearing to the public to consider the exhibit.

During questioning from Judge Tony Graf, Novak was asked, "does religion or gender intersect with political expressions?" Novak said it was a "complicated question that the state wants the court to say is a simple yes."

Graf ultimately ruled that the exhibit could be provisionally admitted, and because of that status, it would not be published in the courtroom or to media.