@nasedka / nasedka.tumblr.com
A forum for discussion of death penalty abolition and other social justice
issues, making technology easier to use, and (occasionally)
Thoroughbred racing
My main purpose in starting this blog is to advocate for the abolition of the death penalty in the USA and world-wide. Here are some of the organizations that I support:
Death Penalty Focus
Death Penalty Information Center
Conservatives Concerned - Believe it or not, there are conservatives who oppose the death penalty: "A network of political and social conservatives who question the alignment of capital punishment with conservative principles and values... The death penalty risks innocent lives, drains limited resources, and fails the families of victims."
Catholic Mobilizing Network - I was brought up Roman Catholic, and although I no longer believe its doctrines, I have great respect for the Catholic Church's stance on this issue: "Our Catholic faith affirms the sacredness of all life, regardless of the harm someone has endured or inflicted. The death penalty violates this divine vision of justice."
My interest in abolishing the death penalty originated when the case of Tyler James Robinson, Charlie Kirk's alleged murderer, came to my attention. If you're interested in following this case, I strongly recommend @tylerrobinsoncase, the most comprehensive collection of facts and debunking of conspiracy theories I've ever seen. I plan to post my own reactions to the case in the next few weeks.
Other causes
Acceptance of members of the LGBTQ+ community so that they don't need to hide whom they choose to love. I'm a binge watcher of Heated Rivalry and a proud member of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and other advocacy groups.
Universal health care, preferably single-payer. Although not a medical professional, I am a member of Physicians for a National Health Program
Civil liberties in general: ACLU
More about me
Besides being horse-crazy, I have a PhD in chemistry and over 30 years of experience designing, testing, and documenting computer software in Silicon Valley.
When people ask my age, I tell them that I was born the same year as Secretariat's mother, Somethingroyal.
heterosexual cis female: she/her pronouns
Other interests
Usability: My main goal in my professional life was to make technology easier to use. When confronted by an unusable software program, people tend to feel ashamed and think they're stupid. Not so! I hope to hold software developers accountable to make more usable software by understanding their users. If you're interested in how a PhD chemist became a usability professional, see The User Interface from Hell.
Croatian family origins: I've been trying to locate the birthplace of my maternal grandfather, Nicholas Ivan Čupac, who was born in Croatia in 1896.
Bollywood: My favorite stars are Rani Mukerji and Amitabh Bachchan. I love the fact that India doesn't allow onscreen mouth-to-mouth kissing. Imagine that - this in the land of the Kama Sutra!
Rock music: My favorite bands and songs:
Spinal Tap (Big Bottom)
Led Zeppelin (Whole Lotta Love)
Foreigner (Urgent)
Dire Straits (Money for Nothing)
Defense probable cause brief: Tyler did not put others at a great risk of death and never made specific statements regarding Kirk's politics
Tyler Robinson's defense team says their client should not stand trial on a charge of aggravated murder because the state has not proven any
Hey everyone, haven't been on here for a while. As stipulated at the prelim last month, the state filed a brief arguing Tyler should be bound over for trial two weeks ago, and the defense has just filed their response. Quick summary (don't @ me with the caselaw stuff):
First things first, it seems pretty clear the defense doesn't intend to pursue a factual innocence defense—that is, they're prepared to concede Tyler is guilty. The brief does not address issues of guilt regarding the murder itself, other than a short preemptive disclaimer that all charges should be stricken due to their basis in hearsay. It focuses on the aggravating factor, the victim targeting enhancement (Tyler targeted CK because of his transphobia), one of the witness tampering charges (Tyler telling Lance not to speak to police), and the endangerment of a child charge/enhancement (that Tyler knew there were children under 14 in the crowd).
"In the face of the absence of evidence, the State focuses on Mr. Robinson’s sexuality and Mr. Twiggs’ gender identity, if only because those are two topics on which Mr. Kirk was, in fact, widely viewed as expressing hatred and intolerance."
1) The victim targeting enhancement alleging that Tyler killed CK because of his transphobia has not been established. The prosecution's argument is based almost entirely on the fact that Tyler was in a relationship with Lance, and she was identifying as female to her close friends. Other than Tyler's vague statement that he'd "had enough of [CK's] hatred," the defense has not been able to find any evidence of Tyler knowing about specific political expressions of CK's, nor comments from Tyler regarding CK's views, despite going through his residences, electronic devices, and interviews with third parties.
2) The defense argues that there is insufficient proof to charge Tyler with aggravated murder. The only aggravating factor in this case is that the shooter knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than the victim. Under Utah law, if the defense is able to downgrade the aggravated murder charge to murder, Tyler's maximum sentence will be life with parole instead of death. The defense spends two-thirds of the brief arguing that the state has not proved the aggravating factor. They note that in Utah and federal caselaw, defendants convicted of this aggravating factor typically fire multiple shots in close temporal and spatial proximity to individuals other than the victim, have the intention to harm these other individuals, and do, indeed, cause injury to them. In addition, there should be a likelihood or high possibility of great risk of death caused, not just a mere possibility.
The Utah Court of Appeals decision on this aggravating factor is Sosa-Hurtado I (2018), which laid out three factors of analysis:
[J]udicial decisions about whether this aggravator applies are often influenced by three main factors: (1) the temporal (or chronological) relationship between any actions the defendant may have taken towards the third party and the acts constituting the murder; (2) the spatial relationship, or proximity, between the third party, the murder victim, and the defendant at the time of the acts constituting the murder; and (3) whether and to what extent the third party was actually threatened by the assailant, either by direct threats or by indirect means such as the risk of stray or ricocheting bullets.
According to the defense, the prosecution's focus on the line of sight argument (that Tyler saw and might have hurt others in his line of sight) "defies logic" and is reliant on outdated Pennsylvania law. In Tyler's case, he fired from above and the bullet's path did not travel through the crowd. No one was directly behind CK (the tent was opaque anyway, so Tyler wouldn't have been able to see through the other side), nor was there anyone standing in the tent on the side CK was shot. There was a large distance between the questioner and CK, contrary to the prosecution's assertion they were only a few feet apart. Tyler only voiced his intention to kill CK; the prosecution cannot prove he had the intention to harm anyone else. The three extra cartridges do not mean he was planning to fire additional shots into the crowd, the targets found in the apartment demonstrating inaccurate aim are devoid of context, and there is no proof Tyler ever reassembled his rifle, affecting his accuracy.
3) Count Six (witness tampering) should be stricken. The count alleges Tyler told Lance to stay silent if police spoke to her:
"if any police ask you questions ask for a lawyer and stay silent. my lawyer should be Doug Terry, I’ll see if he can reach out to you. and make sure the police follow the right procedures, proper warrants and stuff, but be polite and respectful of course."
But the defense believes Tyler's advice for her was consistent with her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and in any case, his advice was "purely altruistic" and for her benefit rather than to obstruct an investigation. His focus was on protecting her, not himself. Some new messages below:
4) Count Seven (knowingly exposing a child under 14 to a violent crime) and the "violent offense committed in the presence of a child" aggravating factor should be stricken because the prosecution has not provided evidence that Tyler was aware of the presence of children. The prosecution presented a video of a mother with two children in the crowd, but there was no evidence that Tyler would have been aware of their presence. Though Tyler walked around campus in the morning, there was no evidence he went anywhere near the crowd or that he observed children and families walking to the amphitheater.
More links
💬 3 🔁 0 ❤️ 2 · Will the defense get other opportunities to get the death penalty dropped? · A Utah judge in the case against the man accus
💬 0 🔁 2 ❤️ 5 · So after the hearing, I honestly felt worried about him :( I think it's so unfair that he might be executed, when there are
💬 0 🔁 0 ❤️ 5 · More complete text exchange between Tyler and Luna · This is a compilation of information from the charging doc and various
I thought you might be interested to know how someone with a PhD in chemistry ended up in the tech industry as a usability consultant.
When I was in graduate school, the members of my research group were using a sophisticated analytical technique called nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy to study proteins like hemoglobin and myoglobin. After preparing a sample in the lab, we needed to get the NMR spectrum of the sample – a kind of chemical fingerprint that would tell us exactly what was going on in the sample. We knew how to prepare samples and we knew how to interpret spectra. But there was a big barrier between preparing the sample and getting the spectrum: the instrument we had to use, which had a control system that was so difficult to use I called it "the user interface from hell."
There it was, six feet tall and six feet wide, with a panel full of blinking lights and mysterious dials. To operate the instrument, you had to acquire all sorts of specialized knowledge of electronics that had nothing to do with chemistry. The user interface was so opaque that one member of our lab playfully put the labels “Phase of Moon” and “Anxiety Index” on two of the dials.
But didn’t the instrument have documentation to tell you what to do?
Ah yes, the documentation! It was old-style documentation, meaning that it described what each control did, but provided no information on how we needed to set those controls to get spectra of OUR samples.
“This is ridiculous!” I thought. “Nobody should have to go through what I went through to learn how to use this thing! I’m going to write a manual for it!” So, I wrote about two dozen pages that explained exactly what the chemists in my research group needed to do to run their samples: the settings for all those mysterious controls, and the order in which to set them! I produced the first draft of that manual in 1980, two years before I finished my thesis.
The other members of my research group were astonished at my achievement; none of them had ever thought to do such a thing. “Well, there’s your thesis!” one of them said. That led me to a career change: instead of making discoveries myself, I decided to make it easier for other scientists to make discoveries.
Thankfully, today’s chemists no longer need to deal with the User Interface from Hell. Modern instruments, with fully computerized control systems, only ask the chemist to enter chemical data such as the sample concentration and solvent.
Of course, I didn’t call myself a “usability consultant” at that time, because the concept of usability didn’t exist yet. If you wanted to make technology easier to use in those days, you became a technical writer. Consequently, my first job after I got my PhD was as a junior technical writer at an engineering firm. But that’s a story for another time.
STAY SAFE!! [ID: the Gilbert Baker pride flag with the words “Happy pride to all those who are unable to celebrate openly and safely. You are loved and seen!” in all-caps black text over it. /end ID]
I am writing this to the Real Tyler James Robinson. Not the person that I think you are, based on publicly available information and my own personality and values, but the Real Person behind the public figure.
My support for the Real Person does not depend on the outcome of his case (although I wish him luck in that regard), or whether he is guilty or innocent. In fact, I don’t care if the Real Person is actually the biggest jerk in the universe, I will still continue to pray that the Real Person and his loved ones have all the things that I want for myself: peace of mind and a life of sane and happy usefulness. I want them to have all of that, no matter what their life circumstances might be.
I am grateful that the Real Person is, in some small way, part of my life.
When we sentence comeone to death, whom are we really punishing?
Consider this: Once we execute the offender, their suffering is over. But the people who love the offender will feel the pain of that loss for the rest of their lives. In effect, it puts the victims’ loved ones in the position of saying, "My loved one was killed, so your loved one has to die, too!" When you inflict death as punishment, you end up with one more set of bereaved loved ones. That does no good, and in fact interferes with healing on all sides.
You might say that the offender you’re sentencing to death is such a terrible human being that nobody could possibly love him or her, so nobody would mourn the loss. I disagree. Everyone has people in their lives who love them and will mourn their death.
Some will object that if we replace the death penalty with life imprisonment, we need to feed the offender for the rest of his/her life. On the other hand, we now have the offender's lifetime labor as a wergild for the victim's loved ones, that is, as a way of "paying their debt to society" as the saying goes, and of making amends.
Others contend that life imprisonment without possibility of parole is a fate worse than death; it's almost as if they see the death penalty as a kind of mercy killing. But the real reason that life imprisonment is such a terrible fate is the living conditions in many of our prisons. The solution to that, however, is to improve prison conditions, not to kill offenders!
Here are some words of wisdom on this subject.
“Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the LORD.” Deuteronomy 32:35.
“If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for by doing so you will heap burning coals on his head and the LORD will reward you.” Proverbs 25:21-22
“An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” Gandhi
“I do not feel any pity for Gollum.” [said Frodo]. [...] He deserves death.’ [Gandalf replied,] ‘Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” J. R. R. Tolkien, Fellowship of the Ring / Being the First Part of the Lord of the Rings.
The Death Penalty is Not Justice for Charlie Kirk's Killer. This is an opinion piece by Demetrius Minor, the executive director of Conservatives Concerned. He is a preacher, advocate, relationship builder, and a writer working to educate and mobilize conservatives around the systematic flaws with the death penalty.
Does anyone else feel a bit traumatized by how emotionally attached they are to Luigi’s case?
I’ve never followed a criminal case this closely before and now I’m constantly wary of not getting attached to another one because it’s so draining to become this engaged and I honestly can’t do it again??
I watched a bunch of TikTok’s yesterday on the Lindsey Clancy trial until I had to stop myself because I started to feel too much - I need to keep a healthy distance to not get in to deep because I literally don’t have time or emotional bandwidth to behave like this again 😭
Prosecution files brief supporting bindover, alleges Tyler was motivated by LGBTQ rights
Per the parties’ agreement during the prelim, on the 28th the prosecution filed their brief supporting bindover—that is, it’s more likely than not that Tyler committed the crimes he’s been charged with, and there’s sufficient evidence for him to go to trial.
The prosecution has a pretty fucking weird laser focus on LGBTQ rights in the section discussing the victim targeting enhancement (that Tyler targeted CK because of his perception of CK’s political expression and should be sentenced more harshly for it). They start off by establishing that Tyler said he’d “had enough of [CK’s] hatred,” but didn’t identify what this “hatred” was. Then they fill in the blanks for Judge Graf: it was CK’s homophobia and transphobia.
The prosecution alleges Tyler had a “lifestyle” that was the opposite of CK’s “classical Christian” values, because he was in a relationship with a trans person and “loved and cared deeply” for her. That’s it. Not because Tyler said anything about CK’s anti-LGBTQ views, but because he was in a queer relationship and called CK “hateful” (such a vague descriptor). They also ignored Lance’s testimony that she and Tyler didn’t really discuss LGBTQ issues. I know it’s probable cause and the burden of proof is low, but it’s ludicrous that they can essentially charge this as a “reverse” hate crime with no specific evidence that he opposed CK’s views in particular. Is it possible they have messages/statements from him expressing those sentiments? Sure, they probably do, but in a legal system with integrity they should be required to present this at the probable cause stage.
And I also found it very strange that they didn’t mention Tyler’s dislike of Trump to prove he was against CK’s “political expression.” Lance alluded to Tyler’s anti-Trump views in her statement, and Tyler complained about his dad being MAGA in their text exchange. (Speaking about the prelim exhibitions and arguments only—there’s obviously more evidence of his political views that hasn’t been presented yet). That’s roughly as substantive as the evidence of him being actively pro-LGBTQ, but the prosecution doesn’t mention it at all. Instead, the section highlights CK’s opposition of “transgenderism and homosexuality” and Tyler’s LGBTQ “lifestyle,” with a throwaway mention of the “hey fascist catch” bullet.
I guess they’re really planning on depicting Tyler as this radical LGBTQ assassin then? They also mentioned that he could likely hear the questioner (Hunter Kozak) at the time of the shot through the amphitheater speakers, which seems like an irrelevant detail until you realize they’re referencing Kozak’s question about trans mass shooters, cited in the charging document to support the belief that Tyler killed CK because of his pro-trans views.
I’m eager to see the defense’s response on August 11, which I hope will be more illuminating than this bs.
List of new-ish things in this brief
——Detailed quotes from the CK autopsy. The left side of his C2-7 vertebrae was “obliterated” and a “significant portion” of his cervical spinal cord was “traumatically absent.” Ouch!
——The prosecution (to be precise, Jeff Gray, the man we know and hate. He wrote this) goes pretty in depth about the aggravating factor (that Tyler knowingly put others at a great risk of death), and it seems they feel confident about it. Among the claims are that: he could see through his scope that there were many people standing near CK; he anticipated he might miss because he brought four bullets; he knew his aim wasn’t perfect because of the paper targets in his apartment with bullet holes outside the bullseyes; and he had to recalibrate his rifle and scope after reassembling it, which would increase inaccuracy. Then there’s some caselaw analysis such as the Sosa-Hurtado case (2018 UT).
Remember the aggravating factor is the ONLY thing making this a death penalty case. Without it, the maximum sentence is life with parole. I’ve discussed this here previously with the hope that the defense will be able to get rid of it. For now I’m sure Graf will bind him over on this charge, but it’ll definitely be contested at trial. This is the most we’ve heard the prosecution explain the aggravator, it wasn’t explicitly brought up during the prelim.
——We get Tyler’s final discord messages to his friends in writing (they were only read out in court during the prelim).
——Not much on the obstruction of justice and witness tampering charges, which surprised me. Count 6 in particular seems weak to me. He told Lance not to speak to police and to ask for a lawyer, which… is standard legal advice and isn’t a crime. I also feel less certain about Count 7, that he knowingly shot CK in the presence of children under 14.
Article links
A new court filing argues Tyler Robinson’s personal life stood in “stark contrast” to Charlie Kirk’s views — and that it motivated the fatal
Prosecutors in the Robinson capital murder case argue the decision to bind the case over to trial
What’s happening after the prelim? Do we have any faith right now :(
Hi! So we thought Judge Graf was going to make the bindover decision on July 10th (whether the prosecution had met probable cause for the case to proceed to trial), but the defense asked for more time to file briefings and the last prelim date has been postponed to Sept 1st. So *technically* the prelim hasn’t ended. Sept 1st is a four-hour hearing for the parties to argue about probable cause. After that Graf will make the bindover decision, and after that Tyler will be arraigned and enter a plea.
The prosecution will file their 35-page briefing on July 28th, the defense will file theirs on August 11th, and the prosecution’s 18-page reply will be on August 18th. We can expect to understand more about the defense’s strategy next month, but since they’re just trying to defeat probable cause, I’m not sure if they’ll use trial arguments or hint at mitigation, because that would imply Tyler’s guilt.
Faith… I don’t know about that 😭 I don’t know if there’s going to be a trial, but he’s going to be convicted for sure. What matters now is the sentence. I trust his team and I think they’ll be able to get rid of the death penalty, but to be very frank, the most likely outcome is life with or without parole. I just hope that he’ll continue to have family and friends who love him and for everyone involved in this tragedy (excluding the Kirks/TPUSA) to heal over time 😞 and depending on their wishes, I hope he (and Lance) will be able to come forward with their own version of events.
New info page for Tyler's prelim. I'll be collecting my own posts as well as external links to news articles, videos, and resources. Will be continuously updated.
--Full list and explanation of the state's exhibits and witnesses, made before the prelim.
--If you don't know what a prelim is, go here.
--General masterpost | Legal masterpost
Day 1 (Monday, Jul 6, 9 am – 5 pm MDT)
Summary: Officer Chris Bagley, former UVU campus PD, testifies about the layout of the campus, witnessing the shot, and the discovery of the screwdriver. SBI Agent David Hull testifies about videos of the event and shooting, showing the presence of children and the proximity of others to Kirk; Kirk's autopsy; and doorcam footage of Tyler in Orem at midnight.
Tyler's parents, Matt and Amber, family friends, and other members of the defense team attended.
KSL livestream | Transcript
My posts
--Quick summary pt 1
--Quick summary pt 2
--Did Tyler laugh in Erika's face?
--Details about Tyler, family, attendees
--Erika and her posse
Day 2 (Tuesday, Jul 7, 9 am – 5 pm MDT)
Summary: SBI Agent David Hull's testimony continues. A compilation of UVU campus footage of Tyler before, during, and after the shooting is played. The defense and prosecution debate the relevance of a statement by David Engelhardt, TPUSA board member, in determining if Tyler killed Kirk because of his perception of Kirk's political expression, and whether politics, religion, and gender are interlinked.
SBI Sgt Jen Faumuina briefly takes the stand to attest to the discovery of the rifle, screwdriver, and towel. The defense questions their witness, FBI DNA analyst Amanda Bakker, about the accuracy of DNA testing and the results of DNA reports on these items.
Tyler's parents, family friends, and other members of the defense team attended.
KSL livestream | Transcript
My posts
--Full timeline of new surveillance footage
--Very brief summary
Day 3 (Wednesday, Jul 8, 1–5 pm MDT)
Summary: SBI Agent Brian Davis testifies about the process of Tyler's surrender and arrest. A short clip is played of Tyler entering an interview room at the Washington County Sheriff's Office. The rest of the hearing is occupied by the defense's request to heavily redact Lance's 37 minute video statement. They argue it's largely a device for prosecutor Ryan McBride to testify to evidence and get Lance to agree with him. It also broadcasts Tyler's alleged confessions and private information about Lance. Judge Graf eventually agrees to redact around 16 minutes of the video.
Tyler's parents, maternal grandparents, and other members of the defense team attended.
KSL livestream | Transcript
My posts
--Brief summary
Day 4 (Thursday, Jul 9, 9 am – 5 pm MDT)
Summary: Lance's redacted video statement is played. She talks about her relationship with Tyler, the bullet engravings, the aftermath of the shooting and his confession to her, his political views and favorite games, among other topics. Agent Davis is shown her text messages with Tyler, then Tyler's Discord confession messages, which aren't displayed in court. Sgt Faumuina testifies about the discovery of the rifle, bullets, "test shot" bullet in Tyler's apartment, burnt note, and DNA reports. The defense questions their witness, ATF firearm and toolmarks examiner Samantha Karner, about the inconclusive comparison between the rifle and bullet fragment found in Kirk's body. The state rests their case.
Tyler's parents, younger brothers, maternal grandparents, maternal aunt, and other members of the defense team attended.
KSL livestream | Transcript
Day 5 (Friday, Jul 10, 9 am – 12 pm MDT)
Summary: The defense asks Judge Graf to ban media coverage after the prosecution accidentally broadcasted a photo of Tyler's letter to Lance the previous day. Graf bans the media from filming any of the exhibits shown in the courtroom for the rest of the hearing. The defense continues with their final witness, ATF DNA expert Caitlyn Oliver. She talks about the results of DNA testing on the rifle and says multiple contributors were found in different areas of the rifle, but Tyler was the major contributor to all areas. Tyler's team announces he won't be testifying.
Tyler's parents, younger brother, aunt, and other members of the defense team attended.
Luna has been provided limited immunity. The defense wants to compel her to testify at the preliminary hearing
Defense attorneys want Tyler Robinson's romantic partner to testify in person at an upcoming hearing in the Charlie Kirk killing case, rathe
At the hearing on the 12th, the parties mentioned the defense's new motion to serve a subpoena on an out-of-state witness, who we now know is Luna, Tyler's girlfriend. They want her to travel to Utah and testify in person at the preliminary hearing so they have the ability to cross-examine her. Luna's attorney has already turned down an earlier subpoena from the defense.
Currently, the prosecution is only planning on presenting a video statement from her that was recorded on April 20. As defense attorney Michael Burt characterized it, prosecutor Ryan McBride "met with this witness outside the presence of the defense" and "asked a series of leading questions that the witness was asked to agree to." The defense says the statement touches upon a wide range of topics OUTSIDE of Tyler's messages and letter, so it's likely she was asked about her relationship with Tyler and his political views.
Luna has been provided use immunity by the federal and state government for this video statement. That's a limited form of immunity. It means the government can't use her statement against her, but it doesn't preclude her from being charged with the same crime with the use of other evidence.
Note: the defense is now referring to Luna with male pronouns. As I believe they asked for her permission when they used her chosen name and female pronouns in their earlier motion to exclude, I can't see them deliberately misgendering her now. So it's likely that she requested this to avoid public scrutiny :( I just hope she wasn't pressured into this by her family or attorney...
What is Luna's statement?
💬 0 🔁 0 ❤️ 2 · State's witness and exhibit list revealed. Matt and Amber not testifying, Luna testifying through a pre-recorded statement
We first learned about the video statement when the prosecution filed their full witness and exhibit list. Luna is the only listed witness to not appear in person; her video statement was provided to the defense on April 28.
According to the prosecution's opposition (Dkt. 608), the video statement was "consistent" with her Sept 11 interview, in which she confirmed the contents of Tyler's text messages and letter. She described Tyler's statements about killing CK, hiding his firearm, disposing of clothing, and instructing her not to speak to law enforcement. The statement was given under oath and "after an admonishment that any false statement would be punishable by law and could be charged as obstruction of justice."
However, in the defense's latest filing (Dkt. 613), they claim that the statement is "wide-ranging" and covers "many topics that go far beyond" the authentication of the messages and letter. The prosecution clearly isn't just interested in using her testimony to confirm the authenticity of the messages and letter; they want to "open the door" to many topics which they want the court and public to "receive evidence" about.
To me—and I think I'm right, even if I don't want to be—the defense is pretty much saying that the prosecution asked Luna about her relationship with Tyler, her gender identity/sexuality, Tyler's political views, and possibly more. We haven't heard much from the state regarding Tyler's motive, but the probable cause statement and press conferences from September made it clear that they plan on prosecuting this as a political assassination. The probable cause statement claims the suspect chose to shoot CK after he answered a question about "transgender mass shooters." (Which I think is impossible—how could Tyler have heard him from so far away? But that's for another time.)
The prosecution needs Luna to confirm that Tyler cared deeply about trans/LGBTQ rights, and that he thought negatively of CK, so they can shape the public narrative around this case. And this is the only way they can introduce this (so far irrelevant) evidence at the prelim, because Luna is the only witness they have leverage over and whose testimony is necessary to authenticate Tyler's written confessions.
What immunity was she provided with?
Speaking of leverage, yes, she was granted use immunity by the United States Attorney's Office (the feds) and the Utah County Attorney's Office, so her video statement can't be used against her in any future prosecution. But that doesn't mean the prosecution can't charge her for the same crime based on other evidence obtained elsewhere. So, for example, if she admitted to burning Tyler's letter in the video, they could still charge her with evidence tampering if they had separate evidence of her involvement.
So no, she isn't safe at this point. We already know she lied to law enforcement in her September 11/12 interview, when she said Tyler had just "made a joke on Discord," said she didn't have photos of Tyler's letter and didn't know where it was currently, and didn't explain to them that she was trans. (Lying to police is a misdemeanor). We also don't know who burned the letter Tyler left for her. It could still be Tyler, but upon reflection I think it's more likely that she did it. Sadly, she has no choice but to testify and comply with the prosecution for now.
Why does the defense want her to testify in person?
Like the defense said previously, the interview consists of prosecutor Ryan McBride asking Luna a series of questions: "testifying to facts with which [she] expresses agreement." My feeling is that the defense is more concerned with the conditions in which she was questioned and whether she was pressured or coerced into incriminating Tyler. The prosecution and Graf have indicated the defense wants to impeach her—which isn’t as scary as it sounds, it means only that they want to find her testimony unreliable. That was expected, but I’m still hoping they won’t villainize her at trial…
It makes a big difference if the defense can get her to testify in person. Instead of the yes/no answers she was made to give McBride—and I doubt she was allowed to elaborate much either—they can prompt her to answer in more detail and with more nuance. They can also use this as an early opportunity to humanize Tyler and get her to open up about their relationship, how he cared for her and supported her, etc.
And if they manage to impeach her, they will basically be casting doubt on half of the prosecution’s charges against Tyler which rely on her testimony.
What does this have to do with the hearsay motion?
💬 0 🔁 0 ❤️ 2 · Legal updates (as of May 31) · The defense is asking for ALL proceedings to be paused until their petition for the Utah Sup
The defense's subpoena is linked to their motion to find the use of hearsay evidence unconstitutional at the prelim. As Luna is not testifying live in the courtroom, her video statement is "hearsay," meaning that it's an out-of-court statement that won't be admissible at trial. Besides Luna's statement, the prosecution is presenting two other categories of hearsay: scientific reports introduced without the testimony of their authors, and statements made by non-testifying peace officers to testifying peace officers. The defense has argued that they have the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them. You can read more about it here.
Interestingly, the defense has never explicitly mentioned Luna in the hearing and filings we've had on this issue, even though they've known for two months that the prosecution is not going to call her to testify in person, instead using the video statement. The previous hearing was the first time the defense has brought her up in the context of the hearsay motion.
Why is that? I'm not sure, but I think the defense intends to protect her privacy and avoid mentioning her unless absolutely necessary. They were likely in the process of requesting (but not compelling) her to appear through her attorney, and did not submit their motion to subpoena to the court until they had confirmation that her attorney had turned down their subpoena. In the most recent filing, they said they privately filed their motion to subpoena her and the related motion to classify the subpoena in order to protect her "fundamental privacy rights."
It's easy to contrast the defense's secrecy with the prosecution's cavalier attitude regarding her identity. The prosecution filed their opposition to the defense's motion publicly, which identifies her by name and "may or may not have been based upon [her] consent." The defense says this "moots that aspect of Mr. Robinson’s motion to classify" and accuses the prosecution of using their public filing as a "stalking horse for its extrajudicial messaging to the public." The prosecution has also directly mentioned Luna several times; at the May hearing, Chad Grunander mentioned her by name and said he had no concern about media coverage jeopardizing the safety or invading the personal privacy of any individual at the prelim. (So hypocritical coming from him. He was certainly singing a different tune when he and his daughter were witnesses at the February hearing.)
What do I think will happen?
Well, the defense's motion to find the use of hearsay unconstitutional certainly won't be granted, because hearsay is pretty explicitly allowed under Utah law. That means Luna's statement won't be automatically thrown out on the grounds of being hearsay.
However, will Judge Graf find that her testimony is material to establishing probable cause? I don't know! It is true that even without Luna's testimony, the prosecution probably has enough evidence to prove probable cause. The prosecution seems to largely be relying upon State v. Lopez, a 2020 Utah case in which it was found that the defendant did not have the right to compel a witness to testify at the prelim. But as the defense points out, Luna is not a victim, which the witness in Lopez was.
The prelim starts on July 6 so I think Graf will make a decision on the subpoena tomorrow. If the defense does succeed in subpoenaing her, we'll have to see if the court in Texas (where Luna is now) grants the subpoena. And I'm sure the defense will ask Graf to close her testimony to the public.
Whichever way Graf rules, I hope she's able to stay safe, and I hope she knows there are people out there who care about her :(
New info page for Tyler's prelim. I'll be collecting my own posts as well as external links to news articles, videos, and resources. Will be continuously updated.
--Full list and explanation of the state's exhibits and witnesses, made before the prelim.
--If you don't know what a prelim is, go here.
--General masterpost | Legal masterpost
Day 1 (Monday, Jul 6, 9 am – 5 pm MDT)
Summary: Officer Chris Bagley, former UVU campus PD, testifies about the layout of the campus, witnessing the shot, and the discovery of the screwdriver. SBI Agent David Hull testifies about videos of the event and shooting, showing the presence of children and the proximity of others to Kirk; Kirk's autopsy; and doorcam footage of Tyler in Orem at midnight.
Tyler's parents, Matt and Amber, family friends, and other members of the defense team attended.
KSL livestream | Transcript
My posts
--Quick summary pt 1
--Quick summary pt 2
--Did Tyler laugh in Erika's face?
--Details about Tyler, family, attendees
--Erika and her posse
Day 2 (Tuesday, Jul 7, 9 am – 5 pm MDT)
Summary: SBI Agent David Hull's testimony continues. A compilation of UVU campus footage of Tyler before, during, and after the shooting is played. The defense and prosecution debate the relevance of a statement by David Engelhardt, TPUSA board member, in determining if Tyler killed Kirk because of his perception of Kirk's political expression, and whether politics, religion, and gender are interlinked.
SBI Sgt Jen Faumuina briefly takes the stand to attest to the discovery of the rifle, screwdriver, and towel. The defense questions their witness, FBI DNA analyst Amanda Bakker, about the accuracy of DNA testing and the results of DNA reports on these items.
Tyler's parents, family friends, and other members of the defense team attended.
KSL livestream | Transcript
My posts
--Full timeline of new surveillance footage
--Very brief summary
Day 3 (Wednesday, Jul 8, 1–5 pm MDT)
Summary: SBI Agent Brian Davis testifies about the process of Tyler's surrender and arrest. A short clip is played of Tyler entering an interview room at the Washington County Sheriff's Office. The rest of the hearing is occupied by the defense's request to heavily redact Lance's 37 minute video statement. They argue it's largely a device for prosecutor Ryan McBride to testify to evidence and get Lance to agree with him. It also broadcasts Tyler's alleged confessions and private information about Lance. Judge Graf eventually agrees to redact around 16 minutes of the video.
Tyler's parents, maternal grandparents, and other members of the defense team attended.
KSL livestream | Transcript
My posts
--Brief summary
Day 4 (Thursday, Jul 9, 9 am – 5 pm MDT)
Summary: Lance's redacted video statement is played. She talks about her relationship with Tyler, the bullet engravings, the aftermath of the shooting and his confession to her, his political views and favorite games, among other topics. Agent Davis is shown her text messages with Tyler, then Tyler's Discord confession messages, which aren't displayed in court. Sgt Faumuina testifies about the discovery of the rifle, bullets, "test shot" bullet in Tyler's apartment, burnt note, and DNA reports. The defense questions their witness, ATF firearm and toolmarks examiner Samantha Karner, about the inconclusive comparison between the rifle and bullet fragment found in Kirk's body. The state rests their case.
Tyler's parents, younger brothers, maternal grandparents, maternal aunt, and other members of the defense team attended.
KSL livestream | Transcript
Day 5 (Friday, Jul 10, 9 am – 12 pm MDT)
Summary: The defense asks Judge Graf to ban media coverage after the prosecution accidentally broadcasted a photo of Tyler's letter to Lance the previous day. Graf bans the media from filming any of the exhibits shown in the courtroom for the rest of the hearing. The defense continues with their final witness, ATF DNA expert Caitlyn Oliver. She talks about the results of DNA testing on the rifle and says multiple contributors were found in different areas of the rifle, but Tyler was the major contributor to all areas. Tyler's team announces he won't be testifying.
Tyler's parents, younger brother, aunt, and other members of the defense team attended.
Prosecutors will present their case this week against the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Hey everyone, Tyler's preliminary hearing will begin at 9 am MDT (3 pm UTC) later today (July 6) and continue until July 10. This will be the largest presentation of evidence by the prosecution so far. The purpose of the prelim is to determine probable cause—whether it's more likely than not that Tyler committed the crimes he's been charged with. After the prelim, Tyler will be arraigned and enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.
I know interest in this case waxes and wanes, but if you're following my blog, I would highly encourage you to watch the livestream. It's important for all of us to know what kind of evidence the prosecution has against him and the defense's potential strategies. The majority of the details mentioned during the hearing won't be included in the news articles.
Thank you for reading my posts since September! Some people have stuck around, most have gone, but I appreciate every single person who's interacted with me and sent in questions. I hope you'll join me this week in lending our support to Tyler. 💗
What to know about the prelim
If you don't know what the prelim is, go here:
💬 1 🔁 0 ❤️ 4 · Post by @tylerrobinsoncase · 10 images · Thanks for the info. I’m confused. What is the “preliminary” hearing? Is that the
July 6th–10th (Monday–Friday), 9 am to 5 pm MDT (3 pm to 11 pm UTC), except July 8th, Wed: 1 pm to 5 pm MDT.
The prelim will be livestreamed throughout by KSL. There will be still photography every day except July 6th, Mon (no nefarious reason, the news agency just didn't submit their request in time).
Members of the public, including journalists, are not allowed to bring electronic devices inside the courtroom, so we won't be getting live updates from journalists on Twitter. The news media intervenors attempted to challenge Graf's ban on devices, but Graf denied their request. They submitted a new request asking for devices to be allowed but with internet functionalities disabled at a minimum, but I believe that’s also been denied.
Each day, 13 journalists and 14 members of the public (on a first come first served basis) will be admitted to the courtroom.
Tyler's family will be at the hearing as usual.
Erika Kirk, her attorney, and Charlie Kirk's parents will attend the prelim, likely with others in Kirk's close circle. The prosecution has asked for a warning to be given before graphic media of the shooting is displayed so family members can exit the courtroom.
Witnesses and exhibits
Below is the full list of the prosecution's witnesses and exhibits submitted in May.
💬 0 🔁 0 ❤️ 3 · State's witness and exhibit list revealed. Matt and Amber not testifying, Luna testifying through a pre-recorded statement
The defense has submitted standing objections to some of the exhibits (all hearsay related):
--The use of hearsay (out-of-court statements) to authenticate any of the prosecution's exhibits, including photos and videos, for which the testifying officer does not have personal knowledge of.
--The admission of the medical examiner report (Kirk autopsy) without the testimony of the medical examiner.
--Statements made by non-testifying peace officers to testifying peace officers.
--The admission of written or recorded statements from witnesses who will not be testifying at the prelim, including Luna. (The defense is currently not mentioning her by name in their filings).
----
Graf has not yet ruled on which exhibits can and can’t be photographed/filmed by the media. He has ordered the prosecution and defense to reach an agreement regarding which exhibits they don’t want to be photographed. He will then make a ruling based on that agreement. The parties have previously agreed that the media will not be allowed to examine or copy the exhibits presented in court, but it’s been unclear until now if they will be able to take photos or film the exhibits shown on the courtroom monitors and projector.
The prosecution has asked for the monitors to be turned away from the public when they play graphic videos of the shooting, but they're unlikely to do the same for other exhibits that might prejudice the defense, such as CCTV footage of Tyler and Luna's video statement.
----
The defense is summoning three federal forensic experts to testify for them. I believe they are the authors of certain FBI/ATF forensic reports on DNA evidence, ballistics, fingerprints, etc. Not sure, but I think they're also calling other witnesses, perhaps more expert witnesses. You can read more about the reports here.
💬 0 🔁 0 ❤️ 0 · Brief summary of the motion to continue the preliminary hearing (Dkt. 466) · Alright, I'm sorry it took me this long! I thi
I think that's about everything! I don't have a good feeling about this at all, even though it'll probably answer a lot of the questions I've had since the beginning of this case. Sending my best wishes to Tyler's loved ones because this will be a shitshow...
I can't believe it's already been 7 months too 😞 I hope the hearing tomorrow will bring him some happiness since he'll be able to see his family. And as always, I'm sending so much love, luck, and strength to him, his family, friends, and Luna 💗
social justice advocate, usability consultant @nasedka - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
