Preliminary Hearing — Day 1 (July 6, 2026) (Part 2 of 2)

Document text

Preliminary Hearing — Day 1 (July 6, 2026) (Part 2 of 2)
Court proceeding — State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson (Case 251403576, 4th Judicial Dist. Ct., Utah County). Transcript is the YouTube auto-caption track of the Court TV feed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fq2kCMVMXI) — verbatim ASR, not a certified court transcript.

through it. She's going to show you 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, thank you. 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 if 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 states 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 Um, with regards to publication, judge, it's our position that it not be published here in the courtroom and that it not be published so that the cameras can display it.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 11:02, which is, you know, someone 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 admissibility and our standing objection for constitutional grounds. >> Judge, would you like me to respond? >> Yes, please. Just with regards to authentication, uh again, the state must produce evidence sufficient to support a 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 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. returning to the state to your screens. All right, they are indie. I see a head nod. Yes. 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 >> 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 Olsen. >> Okay. And and do you know what Mr. Olsen or Curtis Olsen'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 you? >> 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. Olsen, 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, that's I'm going to correct myself on that. If I can refer back to my notes. >> Okay. Please, if it 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. 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? Is there something displayed on your screen right Huh? >> There is. Yes, it's exhibit 12.3. >> Yeah, it should be what's been marked as states exhibit 12.3. Do you recognize what that is? >> Yes, it's a 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? >> The state would uh seek to admit what's been marked states exhibit 12.3. >> Thank you, your honor. Um, we would again renew our concern about hearsay um and our constitutional concerns about that raised in 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. 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. 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 was collected in compliance with rule 1102 subsection B8. 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 it's 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 statement's visible. Thank and if you could scroll down to the Thank you. All right. under the same analysis for 1102 under rule 1102 as well as uh article 1 section 28 of the Utah constitution. I'm sorry not that's the wrongs 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. >> All right, Miss Nester, >> 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 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 Okay, if you'd like to scroll to the Thank you. That concludes publication 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 >> 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, >> Miss Netor. 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. Sturggil, >> 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 and respect to respect and dignity and uh 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? >> All right. Again, to the parties, uh, if you could just indicate if your screen is obscure. 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 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. 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 uh 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 popup tent that Mr. Kirk was sat underneath while he was uh addressing the crowd. >> Okay. So, just really quick, where just to be clear, where in relation to that banner that you see depicted in exhibit nine 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 three to five feet. >> 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 Temponogus Hospital. >> Okay. Before you go any further, that that Mr. Kirk being picked up by his own security, is that is that portrayed in the video >> in exhibit 9? I'm sorry. It's kind of on the left side uh the back of that uh the pop-up tent. >> And then you can see Mr. Co being carried down the left side of the video under that breezeway. >> Okay. 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 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 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 Temponogus 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. >> Um and I spoke with him and he informed me that he was at the hospital when Mr. Kurt 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 Bullock I believe officer Bullock. But if I can refresh my recollection if it'll help if you have it in your notes that will help you refresh your memory. Go ahead and look at that again. Don't read from it out loud. >> It is Officer Bullock. 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 or it 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. >> 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 the 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 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 >> 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 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 disc, compact disc. >> Okay. >> 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 >> that 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 um 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 normally do to determine if this should even be accepted or considered by the court. Um, and so we strenuously object to its admission and for all those reasons to its publication as well. There is also there's some really personal things in there that shouldn't ever be published that are deal with Mr. Kirk's um medical condition history is the condition of his body. It shouldn't be published. Your honor, >> 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 11:02 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 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 ly stated as it relates to 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 15minute afternoon break? >> I think it'd be a great idea, Judge. I've just got one last question. >> All right, I could 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 >> I object. It's not stated as a murder. I believe it's stated as a homicide, which is an important distinction. >> 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 Netor, 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 misstatements, 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 two. Thank you. >> All right. So, I'm going to sustain the objection as it relates to the matter 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 Hull 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. Um, and you can look at it. >> Yeah. >> And would you mind relating uh what the doctor reports is the manner of death? >> Yes. 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 Court is back in session. I'm 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. Sir Joel, 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 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. 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 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 SCIAK 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 were 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. 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 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 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 uh 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. Olsen 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. for Robinson or his vehicle. >> Uh, just with UVU or >> just with UVU, I'm sorry. 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 he 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 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 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 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, 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 whole of Mr. Robinson has been made. Again, this only relates to the preliminary hearing and you may proceed. >> Thank you, Judge. Agent Hall, 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. Dler 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. >> 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 prior exhibit. And let's just be clear So I believe the well the the 112 statement that you gathered from him is exhibit 12.3 correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So at the same time that you gathered that 12.3 or that that uh written statement that is states exhibit 12.3 you talked to about this specific exhibit as well. >> Yes. Mr. Olsson 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, a view 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? on your screen. I'm going to have uh displayed >> 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. Sh the state would seek or would move to admit uh was marked states exhibit 12.1. >> 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 UCJA 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 plaintiffs 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 Do you have a version of this video that does not have uh alterations such as zooming or circling? My concern is that 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 11:02 because you don't have a person testifying 1102 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 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 1102 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? 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 it's your opinion that those videos were captured by UVU surveillance video. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Yes. Okay. 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 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? >> There 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 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 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. 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 punish it's punishable by a class A misdemeanor? Correct. >> Okay. I'm gonna 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 Okay. Do you recognize that? >> I do. Yes. >> What is that? It's >> the 11:02 that myself and Agent Davis uh collected from 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. >> honor, 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 uh 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. There's 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 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 All right, that concludes the publication of states exhibit 13. Okay. 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 >> Have you had a chance to review what's been marked state's 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 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 short time later um starting and leaving the area. >> And and those are the videos that you showed, Miss Noble. >> Yes. 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. what uh what is depicted in this? I think you've already described that. So, judge, I would move to admit exhibit 12.2. 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 one two three four five 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 re seek to admit it. Uh agent, this particular video, you you've described taking several videos to Miss Noble and having her 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 or a number of different videos? >> Be a number of short videos sequenced. >> Okay. A number of short videos in sequence. >> Believe that's how this one plays. Yes. >> Okay. >> 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 >> 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 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 a sound or not. Okay. Heat. Heat. 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 residents. >> 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 individual drives away. Just one moment. >> Yes. Could we approach? Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a 10-minute break for the attorneys to confer and come back at uh well Court is back in session. We ended uh with the parties, the attorneys discussing. Judge, I think um I just have a couple of questions for uh Sergeant Hull 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 a break for the day. Is that right, Mister? >> Well, Sure. >> Um, >> you may proceed with your questions and we'll take it from there. >> All right. Uh, Agent Hole, 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. 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 Hull has identified the defendant, I think we're done. 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 Hull 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, 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. >> 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 is it's a suggestion. Um, >> agent home, 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. >> 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 five 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 uh turning to Miss Netor 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. And 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. >> 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, M. 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.