About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Defense continues cross-examination of former UVU officer in Charlie Kirk's murder trial from KUTV 2 News Salt Lake City, published July 7, 2026. The transcript contains 18,852 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"please be seated court is back in session noting the presence of counsel uh believe we left off cross-examination is necessary ready to proceed yes may it please the court all right you may thank you good afternoon good afternoon i do want to circle back before i start my new section on two i just..."
[00:00:00] Speaker 1: please be seated court is back in session noting the presence of counsel uh believe we left off cross-examination
[00:00:23] Speaker 2: is necessary ready to proceed yes may it please the court all right you may thank you good afternoon good afternoon i do want to circle back before i start my new section on two i just want to specify two things first of all we talked about that you had had no briefing or no materials about security on campus for this particular event did you ever have any operational or tactical plan that you were given for that event for this event no okay and you also mentioned that you've done swat in the past yes um were you a were you a sniper i was i
[00:01:03] Speaker 3: worked well with them but i was not a sniper okay
[00:01:08] Speaker 2: so when you okay just strike that also we talked about the holster the holster that was found are you aware there were any other guns confiscated on the scene that day i'm not you don't know one way or the other i don't know all right now i want to go through with you your timeline um you mentioned that you you started at the hall of flags right and then you came down it took you a minute to kind of navigate the stairs with the crowd and the chaos and everything and then you were in the grassy area
[00:01:50] Speaker 3: of the courtyard for a bit is that right oh yeah so about 30 seconds get down the stairs and then i went right down to where the tent was and that's where you found the holster no the holster was up higher so i went down by the tent so it's lower level so as i came down towards where charlie kirk was shot i went down towards the tent to assess to see what was going on down there because i i didn't know exactly what i heard the gunshot didn't know exactly what was going on i'm sorry i
[00:02:16] Speaker 2: missed that you went down to the tent so let me ask you about that so what did you do when you got
[00:02:21] Speaker 3: down to the tent uh when i got down the tent charlie was gone they put him in an suv and left um at that moment there were still some people running around so i decided to preserve the scene as much as i could with trying to escort people out and that's when i went back in and started pushing people off the grass area to conserve any ammunition or any casings or anything to that effect that would be around i wanted to make sure people were off and there was as much evidence preserved as possible
[00:02:46] Speaker 2: so just to be clear by the time you got to the tent mr kirk had already been removed and taken from the scene is that right yes okay um so in your professional opinion what was what was the parameter
[00:03:01] Speaker 3: of the crime scene what do you mean by the parameter so the perimeter like how far did
[00:03:06] Speaker 2: this crime scene stretch like where did you want people to move off of oh well first i wanted them
[00:03:11] Speaker 3: all off the grass because like i said is i thought we had a suspect in custody so to me it would be a close encounter so i was trying to push everybody off the grass in case there were shell casings or to the effect that it got on the grass so after i pushed them off to that part um and getting up to the top where i saw that empty holster when i saw that empty holster is when it things started slowing down for me a little bit all the chaos and stuff is that's when i realized that it was a rifle
[00:03:36] Speaker 2: shot not a handgun shot okay and that's when you saw the low c building and it occurred you should go check it out yes it was right in my line of sight and it correct me if i'm wrong but um you the whole time that this is going on you had an active body camera on your i guess your collar is that right i was right on my chest yes okay and it was on yes um and it appears to me from reviewing your body camera that there was another individual who was with you that went to the low c building who was in civilian clothing but appeared to have a gun who is that i i don't know who he was exactly
[00:04:15] Speaker 3: he he had a badge on and i had somebody with me to back me up as i ran up the stairs to make sure i had
[00:04:20] Speaker 2: somebody with me so you don't know what agency he's from or where he's from no and he looked like he had a pistol is that right handgun yes handgun um and so the two of you go to the low c building yes did when you reviewed the videotape at the police department later did you check to see if anyone had been on the low c building after the shooting after this individual had jumped off that you've already talked about was there anybody else on the roof did you check and see in that gap of time
[00:04:55] Speaker 3: in that gap of time no so once i put up the barrier i only walked walked up to about that point
[00:05:00] Speaker 2: then i went down and reviewed the video from that moment on so were you able to see are you able to say for one way or the other if anyone else had been on that roof in between when the person jumped off the building and when you came on the roof were you able to say one way or the other there was
[00:05:16] Speaker 3: people up there looking for an individual that ran that way because when i first got told the individual ran heading north that we didn't know where the shooter was so we started climbing up and looking clearing the building and it wasn't until i went to the pd and actually saw him jump off of the building that i knew he was off the building let me rephrase that because i think i'm
[00:05:35] Speaker 2: i either asked it badly or you misunderstood me so let me let me go back again so from the time that the individual that you spotted on the video jumped off the roof right the individual that you thought was in the prone position between that and when you got on the roof did you ever check to see if anybody else had been on the roof in that period of time yeah and i didn't see anybody so you didn't i didn't notice anybody you didn't did you look on the video to see that entire okay that's what i'm asking so you did not review the video to see if there was someone between you that individual jumping off and you coming on if anybody had been on or disturbed that scene in any way okay but once you put the tape up you're then we're confident from that point on the scene was preserved
[00:06:21] Speaker 3: right um by the way where did you get that tape uh officers responded on the scene that he was down
[00:06:29] Speaker 2: on the bottom and threw it up to me so okay so you didn't have it on you no and you didn't leave the scene to go get it no someone threw it up yes great all right while you were on the roof did you encounter any spent casings as a matter of fact no that's why when
[00:06:55] Speaker 3: i i saw the prone position where the person would be laying down a sniper uh being around guns and snipers all the time i was looking for a spent shell casing i couldn't see one i was looking over the edge looking all over the place making sure the gravel wasn't disturbed and i couldn't find a
[00:07:08] Speaker 2: shell casing at that moment and that would be the reason you would be looking for that was because some types of guns when they shoot eject a casing automatically right some do some don't yes all right um and then you also didn't find any un unshot bullets no okay are you aware of there being a bullet found on another roof i'm not vicinity are you aware of another bullet being found on the scene not on the roof of the low sea building i know all right your body cam footage that i reviewed appears to end while you're still on the roof
[00:07:49] Speaker 3: do you know why that is i think the battery went dead it was just right at that moment okay
[00:07:54] Speaker 2: and do you know did you ever turn it back on that day or go get it i don't know what you have to do charge it or stick a new battery and i don't even know usually dock it but no i didn't go back i was too it was too chaotic running around so that 27 minute and 35 second body cam that starts when you're at the hall of flags and ends while you're still on the roof but haven't put the crime tape up yet that's the only body cam you have that day yes all right you mentioned when you went to the police department you watched the video where you saw an individual up on the roof right and that individual was in the vicinity where you saw the disturbance and the gravel yes and um when you looked at that video were you able to identify the individual's face i know were you able to identify any markings on their clothing i know were you able to identify their height no when you all when we looked at the picture of the i think you called it the sniper perch so i'm going to use your word uh words it looked like there was a measuring tape laid out next to it did you ever were you present when they measured like the distance like how long how tall that person would have been i was not so you don't know what that is i don't um were you able to tell the person's weight from the video that you saw i can tell he wasn't heavy set okay more of a skinnier person could you identify what shoes they were wearing i could not could you identify anything about a hat or what was on their head and at the moment no i
[00:09:43] Speaker 3: couldn't okay and did you see a gun in the video i saw a long black object in the left hand as he was
[00:09:57] Speaker 2: running over across the roof and in fact did you describe that in your report as a bag i don't know i have no no idea i don't know why all right let's pull that report back up please oh never mind i don't think you mentioned what you saw so in your report let's do pull that back up please page five on the bagley one so looking at the second page you're actually going to have to go to page six i think you talk about what you saw on the video where they jumped off the roof and again i'm going to remind you of our conversation we had before about you understand how important these reports are yeah and you do you mention anywhere in this report that you saw a gun i did not i just an object did you mention that you saw that object is that on here nope okay so you left that out
[00:11:13] Speaker 3: now have you looked at that over and over again uh the video no i've only seen it twice oh really
[00:11:20] Speaker 2: when's the last time you saw it uh it's been months okay the last time you saw it were you able to tell
[00:11:26] Speaker 3: what that object was in his hand uh yes well not tell what it is i can see there's an object in that
[00:11:31] Speaker 2: left hand yes and could you knowing what you know about the case today do you have an idea about what
[00:11:36] Speaker 3: that object was it looks like a a rifle or something to that effect a long long object it looks like a rifle like a long object like skinny and long you can see it's like almost like it's covered over something so you saw the cover which was the towel right yes and the shape of it is long
[00:11:56] Speaker 2: okay so you can see a towel but you can't see an i don't know if it was a towel or blanket i don't know
[00:12:01] Speaker 3: what it was but you can't see an actual gun no like an object like a form of again like a long object okay
[00:12:14] Speaker 2: all right at the end of that day how what time did you leave the campus i was probably like nine o'clock that night maybe somewhere around there and did you come back the next morning and work some more i came back the next morning yes and you worked all day the next day uh on and off when you left at 9 p.m did you or anyone else know who the shooter was on that day i know not that i know and when you came back the next morning and worked that afternoon all that day did you anybody you or anybody on that campus know who the shooter was uh not that i know of okay so nothing that you found that day or anyone else to your knowledge on campus was able to identify
[00:13:05] Speaker 3: who the shooter was and that they know right well during the time i was there now that i knew of
[00:13:12] Speaker 2: i just want to talk to you about that giant picture that was showed to you um do you know exhibit 35 i think yes it's exhibit 35 do you know who took that picture where it came from i do not do you know how old it is i have no idea okay and the pictures you were shown exhibits one two and three that you got up and kind of talked about and showed all the buildings and everything um do you have any knowledge about where those pictures came
[00:13:44] Speaker 3: from i guess they were drone footage just taken from a drone do you know who was operating the drone sergeant ken nelson from provo police department provo police department had you seen those pictures before today uh before today yes when did you see them a couple weeks ago and that was just in
[00:14:01] Speaker 2: preparation for testifying prior to that had you ever seen those pictures can i have the courts indulgence for just a moment your honor you may just want to
[00:14:31] Speaker ?: see you know what you're going to see if you're going to see them that you're going to see them and i'm going to see them and i'm going to see them and then i'm going to see them
[00:14:42] Speaker 2: one last thing i want to clarify we heard you testify that ms richards or i don't know if she's
[00:14:49] Speaker 3: deputy richards she's a she's a state employee for the forensic lab so ms richards um she is the one
[00:14:56] Speaker 2: who took those nighttime pictures of this stuff on the roof yes and it you testified that she told you that that was what they looked like that day yes when did you meet with her i talked to her on the
[00:15:08] Speaker 3: phone it was several weeks ago in preparation for the trial so prior to a couple weeks ago you never
[00:15:13] Speaker 2: discussed those pictures because i've never seen them oh so a couple weeks goes the first time you saw them right and did you write any kind of supplement to your report to add on to your report other than what we've gone through today that one report you wrote have you ever written another one i have not
[00:15:32] Speaker 1: that's all i have thank you and i tender the witness thank you mr mr mr mr grunander redirect
[00:15:38] Speaker 4: just one question i believe judge all right officer bagley if i could if we could pull up state's exhibit one let's do that you've talked about this uh handgun holster have you observed yes on the grass in the courtyard yes i'm going to ask you if you would approach the uh monitor when it comes up and point out as best you can where you observed that holster okay so again the question is is where where was that uh holster line when you observed it
[00:16:55] Speaker 3: so again this is the picture of the courtyard area facing north uh on the south end down here you got different tiers of grass on this top tier back here in this area which is more the center bottom left of the photo so it's going to be the waterfalls on the on the left side so more towards the top of it on the south side by the fugal building that top tier of grass is about where it was at in the middle area of that yes next by the fugal building okay and that's where i could see straight up where the line
[00:17:28] Speaker 1: of site was okay thank you nothing further judge all right may this witness be excused yes thank you thank you officer just for the benefit of those in attendance that you may have noticed that i drink some water please if you have water and what's been previously approved don't hesitate yours you can drink just don't spill it and let's go to the states uh ready to proceed with your next witness thank you judge the state calls
[00:18:06] Speaker 5: david hole all right
[00:18:10] Speaker 1: would you like to come forward and be sworn in
[00:18:15] Speaker 6: you do solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in the case now pending before the court will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god
[00:18:23] Speaker 1: all right if you'd like to be seated right here at the witness and the witness seats and once you're situated there's a bottle of water to your left and if you wouldn't mind after you're seated bringing that microphone closer to you so it picks up your voice
[00:18:43] Speaker 5: all right council thank you you're ready good afternoon afternoon uh would you please state your full name and spell your last david hull h-u-l-l
[00:18:54] Speaker 7: and are you employed i am yes who are you employed by i'm employed by the department of public safety
[00:19:00] Speaker 5: and how long have you worked for the department of public safety i'm in my 12th year are you uh are you a peace officer i am yes are you post certified i am yes when did you receive receive your certification uh 2015. and since that time has your certification remained intact in other words has it lapsed have been taken away or anything like that no it's been continuous you uh i think you said you're in your 12th year did you did you already say that your 12th year with the dps uh have you worked for any other law enforcement agency besides the dps no just the state of utah what is your current assignment with the department of public safety currently
[00:19:39] Speaker 7: positioned as an investigative sergeant at peace officer standards and training
[00:19:44] Speaker 5: was that your assignment it's in september of 2025 no it was not what was your assignment then i was
[00:19:51] Speaker 7: under the state bureau of investigations major crimes division as an investigator okay is sbi an
[00:19:58] Speaker 5: acronym or an acronym that's commonly used to describe the state bureau of investigation it is yes i can refer to it as the sbi and we're all on the same page right yep okay uh how long were you with the sbi uh a little over seven years and what uh what exactly did you do what was your assignment with
[00:20:16] Speaker 7: the sbi i spent just under a year in the alcohol bureau and and the undercover unit and then the
[00:20:24] Speaker 5: remainder of that time was with major crimes major crimes what what did that entail uh predominantly
[00:20:30] Speaker 7: investigating uh crimes that are considered to be major in nature predominantly violent crime including homicide sexual assault uh in some cases uh fraud cases uh kind of covered a whole gambit of of things but
[00:20:45] Speaker 5: predominantly violent crime and throughout your career with the dps have you uh done any training related to murder investigations specifically yes i have and could you just briefly describe what that
[00:20:59] Speaker 7: specific training entailed i've done um internal and external courses um around uh lead homicide investigation officer involved critical incidents uh child deaths and unexplained deaths in children aquatic homicide and then just continuing investigations related to homicide itself
[00:21:24] Speaker 5: and throughout your career with dps have you either played a role in or led a homicide investigation i have
[00:21:34] Speaker 7: yes how many do you think um either directly or indirectly i've probably been involved in approximately 40 or so and is that throughout the state of utah yes we we assist throughout the state of utah
[00:21:47] Speaker 5: valley valley university i was yeah i was uh i was at the office in taylorsville and i was asked to respond to the campus of utah valley university i was yeah i was uh i was at the office in taylorsville
[00:22:16] Speaker 7: and i was asked to respond down to utah valley university okay and what did you understand was going on at uvu that day uh i didn't know much i had been told that there was some kind of an event and an individual had been shot did you have a name uh someone had told me that charlie kirk had been
[00:22:34] Speaker 5: shot at that point in time were you familiar with charlie kirk i was not no okay did you end up responding so when you found out that there was an event that it was charlie kirk that had been shot that that was while you're still up in taylorsville at your office yes we hadn't been asked to respond
[00:22:50] Speaker 7: at that point um another agent in the office showed me a video of the shooting and i went back to work because we hadn't been asked to respond at that point at some point though were you asked to respond or directed to respond to utah valley yes we were we were asked to make our way down to the university to provide any kind of assistance that was needed okay do you recall who directed you to
[00:23:11] Speaker 5: to come down to utah valley i believe it was lieutenant jensen and is is that something responding to a scene like this uh on a report like that is that something that's done frequently uh within the the sbi
[00:23:29] Speaker 7: yeah sbi functions as a as a supplementary investigative division for really anybody in the state who needs it whether it's a smaller local agency that just needs additional resources we often respond with the crime lab to help process crime scenes but but it would be normal for us to be called out to assist another agency okay so so we understand
[00:23:50] Speaker 5: correctly when you were first directed to come down to utah valley you were just coming down to to give whatever help you could you could provide correct okay that eventually changed yes yeah my assumption was
[00:24:03] Speaker 7: we were we were responding to assist process a crime scene essentially prior to september 10th 2025
[00:24:11] Speaker 5: how familiar were you with the the utah valley university campus not very i think i maybe had been there once before how about from september 10th onward did you become more familiar with the campus became a lot
[00:24:23] Speaker 7: more familiar with the campus and in what way or how um both in in walking the campus and looking at the the incident scene um in viewing surveillance video of the campus and the surrounding areas and and just my general involvement in the investigation i became a lot more familiar with the buildings the the amphitheater and the surrounding area and the campus itself all right and we'll come back to
[00:24:50] Speaker 5: that here in a moment uh who else responded to uvu from the sba um originally i thought it was just
[00:25:00] Speaker 7: myself and a couple of others um i remember sergeant falminer sergeant burka sergeant l schultz uh hd
[00:25:14] Speaker 5: um arriving or were on scene when i arrived there yeah do you uh do you recall if other law enforcement
[00:25:22] Speaker 7: agencies responded that same day yes there was a large law enforcement presence um federal entities i believe the fbi the dea atf i think some u.s marshals there was obviously our state presence and then there was county and uh city and local agencies on scene also so had all these folks responded by the
[00:25:45] Speaker 5: time you got here or had they responded prior to or some could have been on scene prior to some were
[00:25:51] Speaker 7: arriving while i was arriving others arrived later i know there were several uh forensic uh units from various entities including the state crime lab and other agencies and did you interact with all these different agencies you personally uh throughout the course of the the following few days probably the
[00:26:11] Speaker 5: majority of them yes i think you related that originally the sbi was directed to come down just to
[00:26:19] Speaker 7: see if you could help is that fair to say yeah that was all i knew when i left the office was that go down and see what services what what can you do to help and i asked you earlier if that role changed and
[00:26:30] Speaker 5: i believe you said it did so let's talk about that how did your role change from what you initially came down to do to whatever it evolved into uh having been on scene for a little while there were some
[00:26:41] Speaker 7: conversations and discussions that took place and i was informed by my lieutenant that myself and agent davis would be taking lead on the investigation on behalf of the state bureau of investigations
[00:26:55] Speaker 5: so the sbi was going to be the lead investigative agency correct and you were going to be the lead case agent yes along with agent agent davis okay what does it mean to be the lead investigator or the lead case agent it depends on the situation but
[00:27:17] Speaker 7: predominantly you're responsible for kind of directing the investigation coordinating information that that is coming in typically scenes are fairly chaotic initially so you're trying to process as much information as possible and make as much use of the available resources that you have kind of an organizational role would probably be a good way to describe it okay so you you played an active role in organizing uh in coordination with with the administrations of all of the agencies that were on scene yeah we were trying to coordinate efforts and and get to pertinent information as quickly as
[00:27:54] Speaker 5: possible do you recall whether assignments were made at least with the sbi agents that responded with you
[00:28:01] Speaker 7: yeah we have a core group within major crimes that were assigned specific tasks okay and do they include
[00:28:08] Speaker 5: the agents that you mentioned just a minute ago uh yes i believe so so each one of those agents with
[00:28:13] Speaker 7: the sbi were given a specific assignment yes with with the information we had uh the agents were assigned to do specific things
[00:28:20] Speaker 5: and do you remember specifically what assignments were were given to who
[00:28:25] Speaker 7: yes sergeant falmino was asked to coordinate with the the state crime lab and the responding crime scene techs to manage and process any identified crime scenes sergeant mark bricker was put in touch with uvu's surveillance and operations team to start working through any available footage or information that we had that had been recorded sergeant clark was tasked with um the area canvas uh around the the campus area looking for information or any available information from the immediate uh area around campus sergeant l schultz was working with the the sciac and and other administration to try and manage the flow of
[00:29:15] Speaker 5: information that had started to occur okay you said that uh initially when you showed up things were were a bit chaotic yes did that have something to do with all the different agencies that had responded
[00:29:27] Speaker 7: yes and i think initially there was still some uncertainty as to whether we were we were working with an active an active shooter or or an active crime scene the campus is spread over a large area and so so getting that um deemed to be safe is quite a process and involved a lot of people gotcha do you
[00:29:47] Speaker 5: know if the the campus was um deemed safe eventually eventually my understanding is the campus was locked down
[00:29:56] Speaker 7: and secured and and we were able to start getting people in to start processing crime scenes and and doing
[00:30:02] Speaker 5: additional things okay you said uh it sounds like that chaos eventually subsided you got organized and assignments were made what what was the first thing that you did as as lead investigator uh it kind of became organized chaos but but
[00:30:18] Speaker 7: we did have a plan and our priority was determining whether we had an ability or a way to be able to identify who had been involved in the shooting
[00:30:28] Speaker 5: that was our uh that was our primary focus at that time did that include collecting information that was
[00:30:34] Speaker 7: becoming available yes we were getting a large volume of information from the general public uh phone tips people sending videos uh analysts were were scrolling through social media and social sites as people were posting information onto the internet um so there was a lot of information coming in a lot of things that needed to be processed through and worked okay were videos coming in yes cell phone videos were coming in um if you imagine there's 3 000 people at an event and everybody has a cell phone there was a lot of
[00:31:08] Speaker 5: information that people were willing to share with us all right do you know whether uh you or someone else with the sbi collected or received a video from uh an amanda wright yes yeah i know a cell phone video was
[00:31:22] Speaker 7: collected from amanda right and do you know amber right i'm sorry amber did i well you tell me amanda or
[00:31:30] Speaker 5: amber amber okay i apologize for that wrong first name um do you know who or how that video was collected
[00:31:40] Speaker 7: yeah i spoke with miss wright directly on the phone to arrange a time to go and collect that video um unfortunately she wasn't available uh that day but agent davis was able to go meet with her directly
[00:31:51] Speaker 5: and collect the video do you recall what that you you actually spoke to miss right um if i can refresh my recollection well i specifically sure let me ask you this before you do that yes sir so you you have in
[00:32:03] Speaker 7: front of you what your police report uh i have some notes and the timeline is from my investigation that
[00:32:09] Speaker 5: was part of discovery and and referencing that that uh timeline or those notes will they help you recall the date that you called miss wright they will yes okay why don't you go ahead and refer to that don't read from it out loud just take a minute let me know when you've come across that information and
[00:32:27] Speaker 2: once you've refreshed your memory your honor when he's done may i take a look at the
[00:32:31] Speaker 7: materials as well please you may um miss wright was contacted on april 7th
[00:32:41] Speaker 1: all right miss nester if you'd like to come forward
[00:33:01] Speaker 7: yeah
[00:33:11] Speaker ?: you you you you you you
[00:33:13] Speaker 1: Thank you. Yes, it just appears when the camera is focused on you, just the way it's positioned, you're in front of the witness and we just want to make sure that… It won't go far.
[00:34:00] Speaker 5: Yeah, it's not going to go that far.
[00:34:01] Speaker 1: Is that going to be far enough? I think that that is sufficient. So, all right. Thank you. I appreciate your help with that.
[00:34:07] Speaker 5: Are we still connected? We'll see.
[00:34:10] Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Let's make sure that Mr. Sturgill is picked up. Okay. You may proceed. Thank you.
[00:34:17] Speaker 7: And if I can make a correction to that, I think…
[00:34:21] Speaker 5: Well, let me ask you this first. So, he needs to ask you a question. Okay. So, Mr. Sturgill. So, you've had a moment to look at your notes? Yes, sir. Did that help you remember the date that you contacted Ms. Wright?
[00:34:32] Speaker 7: It did, yes.
[00:34:33] Speaker 5: Okay. Why don't you go ahead and tell us what date you contacted Ms. Wright?
[00:34:37] Speaker 7: I contacted her, I think it was April 6th specifically, but Agent Davis met with her on April 7th. Okay.
[00:34:45] Speaker 5: Well, that was going to be my next question. So, you actually talked to her on the… was it on the phone? It was, yes. And did you arrange a time for either you or Agent Davis to go get the video from Ms. Wright? Yes. Is that how it happened? Yes. And then you didn't go, it was Agent Davis that went?
[00:34:59] Speaker 7: Correct.
[00:35:00] Speaker 5: Okay.
[00:35:01] Speaker ?: Gotcha.
[00:35:02] Speaker 5: And what, if anything, has been done with that video in preparation for today?
[00:35:12] Speaker 7: My understanding is that some edits were made by your office in order to protect some of the participants in the video.
[00:35:19] Speaker 5: Okay. But what's… Let me ask you this. Did you or Agent Davis visit with Ms. Wright again?
[00:35:26] Speaker ?: Yes.
[00:35:27] Speaker 7: Yes, that was in April and that was where my correction was. The video was originally provided to Agent Mortenson. Okay. So, I misspoke. Okay.
[00:35:38] Speaker 5: Let's go back and let's make sure this is very clear. Sure. Okay. So, someone with the SBI collected a video… Yes. …from Amber Wright. Yes.
[00:35:50] Speaker 7: Agent Mortenson contacted Ms. Wright on October 8th. And a video was provided to him electronically on October 11th. Okay.
[00:35:57] Speaker 5: And… Now I'll ask the next question. What, if anything, has been done, either by you or another agent, with that same video in preparation for today's hearing?
[00:36:09] Speaker 7: We contacted Ms. Wright to arrange a meeting so that Ms. Wright could review the video and that we could verify firsthand with her that the video was what she had taken on September 10th at the event at UVU. Okay. And who had that follow-up visit with Ms. Wright? That was Agent Davis.
[00:36:26] Speaker 5: I was not able to attend. Okay. And you know that happened because you spoke to Agent Davis?
[00:36:31] Speaker 7: I spoke to Agent Davis and he provided me with a written statement that Ms. Wright had completed. Okay. And 1102.
[00:36:39] Speaker 5: Okay. And so you have seen that written statement?
[00:36:42] Speaker 7: I have, yes.
[00:36:43] Speaker 5: Okay. And you've read through it? I have. Does that… Do you recall whether that statement was on a form or a piece of scratch paper? What do you recall?
[00:36:53] Speaker 7: My recollection is that it was on an official, I believe, a State Bureau 1102 statement, which is a written form that is filled out by a witness that contains the 1102 warning.
[00:37:05] Speaker 5: Right. And by that, do you mean the advisory, the statement that's written on that piece of paper is going to be used at a preliminary hearing? Yes. It includes that advisory? Yes. Does it also include a warning that if someone provides a false statement, in this case Ms. Wright, that it could be punishable by a class A mission error? It does, yes.
[00:37:25] Speaker ?: All right.
[00:37:26] Speaker 5: And what do you recall is the essence of that written statement from Ms. Wright? I mean, what does it basically say?
[00:37:45] Speaker 2: Object, Your Honor. At this point, we want to assert our standing objection to the constitutionality of allowing in Ms. Wright's statement when she is not here present in court to be cross-examined. We did include those constitutional arguments in our standing objection. Also, this does fall under the type of document that should be safeguarded under Rule 4-202.02-8, as in Frank, and/or should be classified as protected under subsection 5-O, as in orange, because the disclosure could jeopardize the life safety or property of the witness. It's also technically a victim's. I mean, if she's present under the current theory and the information, she's technically could be classified as a victim of the event. So it also should be protected under that. So we would object to it being read in public. It would not be admissible at trial in the current format that it is due to its hearsay nature. We do think it would negatively impact our client's right to a fair trial. And furthermore, I believe the witness herself has requested that, particularly because the video contains images of minor children, which I know the state has made an effort to redact. But nevertheless, the reference to the minors, I think, would still fall under the protection. And so for all those reasons, we would object to that coming out in public and being discussed in the public forum and being published in any way. And we object to it coming in.
[00:39:37] Speaker 1: All right. And so if you wouldn't mind just restating the rule that you're relying upon so I can fully look at your objection.
[00:39:47] Speaker 2: It's the UCJA, the Utah, oh gosh, Code of Judicial, Code of Judicial Administration. I just blinked. The Utah Code of Judicial Administration for Rule 4-202.02, parenthetical 8, parenthetical F as in Frank, and or parenthetical 5 and parenthetical capital O.
[00:40:19] Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. I'm just getting there. I want to review this before I hear from Mr. Sturgill. All right. I've reviewed that. Mr. Sturgill.
[00:40:44] Speaker 5: Let me address, I guess, a couple of things. Ms. Nestor actually brought up, I think, both the 1102 statement that we intend to introduce and sort of referred to the video. So let me address each of those one at a time. With regards to the 1102 statement that was prepared by Ms. Wright, Judge, it was gathered in compliance with the Utah Rules of Evidence 1102, specifically subsection B-8. It's a statement that was gathered by an SBI agent. It was prepared with knowledge of the advisory that it was going to be used at the preliminary hearing. And it also included the warning that if a false statement is given, it's going to be a class A misdemeanor. Judge, I don't know what additional foundation you'd like. Well, that's kind of where I was going, Judge, is I was trying to lay a little bit more foundation just to introduce that statement alone. I haven't got yet to the video. But with regards to the 1102 statement, it has been collected in compliance with Rule 1102. As I stated, B-3 or B-8. And as we all know, Rule 1102 allows reliable hearsay, as does the State Constitution Article I, Section 12.
[00:42:05] Speaker 1: So what exhibit will this be? I want to look at it not for the purposes of, as a magistrate, taking it into evidence, but see if it comports with Rule 1102 as stated. Because I haven't seen it. Sure. And I haven't done the analysis to see if that objection is.
[00:42:25] Speaker 5: Judge, it is State's Exhibit 6.1.
[00:42:38] Speaker 2: And Your Honor, just for the record, we just want to make a record, too, that it's difficult for the court to make a reliability finding when the individual is not here to be tested and cross-examined. And for those same reasons that we list in our standing objection, we just want to reiterate to the court that we think it really hampers you from making that reliability determination. Thank you.
[00:43:00] Speaker 1: Anything further, Mr. Sturgill?
[00:43:05] Speaker 5: Well, just that 1102 doesn't require that, Judge. It doesn't require that the witness be here to corroborate the statement that they've already prepared. All right.
[00:43:13] Speaker 1: All right.
[00:43:14] Speaker ?: All right.
[00:43:15] Speaker 1: I've had a chance to review State's Exhibit 6.1, taking into note what, Ms. Nester, UCJA 4-202.02, in referencing the section she did. I don't mean to interrupt, but I had not yet addressed that rule.
[00:43:32] Speaker 5: I would simply just add to that, that that judicial rule, it does nothing to do with admissibility. It's simply publishing it. All right. I see. And I'm sorry.
[00:43:51] Speaker 1: And so, okay, so let me just hear your full argument.
[00:43:53] Speaker 5: Yeah, I didn't realize you wanted to hear all of that. I thought you were going to rule on the 1102, but.
[00:43:57] Speaker 1: Well, I want to focus on the 1102. I want to keep this clean. Right. And then we'll stop there. Sure. And I can make my ruling. And then if there's any objections, I just need to take it one step at a time to be thorough. Sure. So I'll hear all your arguments about the 1102 statement. I'll return to Ms. Nester for any final thoughts, and then I'll make my ruling, and then we can move to the next stage.
[00:44:20] Speaker 5: I appreciate that, Judge. And I think what I've, I think I have addressed the 1102 question as far as admissibility under rule 1102. I thought that's what you want to rule on first, and then I would address the UCJA 4-202.02. And if you want me to do that now, I can do that. And it's just simply that it does, has nothing to do with admissibility. Okay. It has everything to do with publishing that. And Judge, I think if you'll look at that written statement, I believe Ms. Wright's personal information, for the most part, has been redacted. Other than that, beyond that, Judge, I'll leave it up to your discretion.
[00:45:01] Speaker 1: Well, as it relates to, well, let me, let me take it one at a time. Let's start with the last statement. What I have in front of me, plaintiff's exhibit 6.1, has her full information here. Address, phone number, social security number. Okay.
[00:45:17] Speaker 5: Judge, I apologize for that. I thought we'd provided a redacted version of that. Yeah. I think I've clarified what's going on here. I think we provided you with an unredacted version some time ago. The version that we have and are prepared to present today is a redacted version.
[00:45:49] Speaker 1: Could I have a copy of what you're intending to admit into evidence so I can consider West before me?
[00:46:04] Speaker 5: Judge, we can bring it up electronically. We don't have a hard copy of that. All right.
[00:46:08] Speaker 1: I want to make sure that's not coming on screen. It's just coming on my screen to review it. All right. Okay. No, and that's fine. It's not, it's just for my, I can look it on my screen because I'm trying to evaluate. So if you just want to put it back on my screen. All right. Well, so what I'm doing is I'm looking at this and just for clarity moving forward, if there is a particular exhibit, I'll ask that you provide it instead of me relying upon here just so there's no misunderstanding and I can see exactly what is being moved into evidence. I don't want to assume. Right. And I want to do the proper analysis. All right.
[00:46:56] Speaker 5: And I appreciate that, Judge. And I apologize. I understood that we were presenting redacted copies today. Okay. And I think there's just a little bit of glitch. So I apologize for that, Judge. All right.
[00:47:04] Speaker 1: And Ms. Nestor, I just want to make sure that you're looking at this exhibit as opposed to what I was just looking at in regards to your arguments. With this clarification in mind, any update to your argument or anything that you would like the court to consider?
[00:47:25] Speaker 2: The only other issue I think that exists with this that I haven't already raised is that there's clearly two different authors in the body of the document. One wrote something on the very top line and then it looks like Ms. Wright wrote the rest of it, which we don't have any indication of who wrote that top line and when they filled that in, if it was before or after she signed the document. So I have some concerns about authenticity with respect to that as well. And that's all I have.
[00:47:58] Speaker 1: All right. And as I'm determining it, it does appear that the writing is different. Do you have in front of you State's Exhibit 6.1?
[00:48:14] Speaker 7: I do, yes.
[00:48:15] Speaker 5: Okay. You've heard the discussion that just took place. It appears as if there's two different styles of writing on that form. Yes. Okay. I imagine that you have the writing that includes personal information from Ms. Wright and then directly below that I think there's a line there that appears to be arguably writing prepared by someone else. Is that in fact accurate that that is a different author of that writing?
[00:48:43] Speaker 7: That's correct.
[00:48:44] Speaker 5: What do you know about that writing on that first line just below statement of incident?
[00:48:49] Speaker 7: Because we were asking Ms. Wright to verify a specific video, the file name for that video was written on the statement in her presence. And then that video with that file name was then shown to Ms. Wright to verify that it was in fact the video that she had provided to us. Okay.
[00:49:05] Speaker 5: And so was it you or SBI Agent Davis that prepared that?
[00:49:10] Speaker 7: Based on the writing, it appears to be Agent Davis's writing, but it's not my writing.
[00:49:15] Speaker 5: All right. But that is the routine or is that kind of how you commonly do this?
[00:49:21] Speaker 7: In this case, because we were specifically asking them to verify a specific digital file that had a specific digital name. And we didn't want there to be any errors in how that name was presented. We wrote the file name on the document for the individuals.
[00:49:36] Speaker ?: Okay. All right.
[00:49:38] Speaker 1: Anything further, Ms. Nestor, with that additional information before the court makes its ruling?
[00:49:43] Speaker 2: Your Honor.
[00:49:44] Speaker 1: All right. And having -- could you leave that on the screen for me, please? I was just -- I appreciate that. And scroll down to the bottom. I just want to review it one last time. All right. And I believe this is Exhibit 6.1. Is that correct, Mr. Sturgill? If it is, Judge.
[00:50:05] Speaker 5: And I would -- I would move to admit 6.1. Thank you.
[00:50:10] Speaker 1: So, considering the arguments made by Ms. Nestor and Mr. Sturgill, I rely upon Rule 1102, as well as Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 12, as I previously mentioned. That final paragraph, it states nothing in this Constitution shall preclude the use of reliable hearsay as defined by statute or rule in whole or in part at any preliminary examination to determine probable cause or at any pretrial proceeding with respect to release of the defendant if appropriate discoveries allowed as defined by statute or rule. So, I have examined this and clarification was made. The previous version of this would fall afoul of having identifiable personal information of Ms. Wright. And so, that was removed. And this one, with the redacted portion of the identifiable information, personal information for Ms. Wright, is before me. And based off that, states exhibit 6.1 with redactions is admitted into evidence and may be published. Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Judge.
[00:51:27] Speaker 5: Agent Hull, that statement that was prepared by Ms. Wright, what does it state with regards to the video that you showed her that day, or I guess Agent Davis showed her that day?
[00:51:38] Speaker 7: It states that she's confirmed that she did review the video and that it was a true reflection of the video that she took on September 10th, 2025.
[00:51:48] Speaker 5: And did she identify who's in that video in her statement?
[00:51:52] Speaker 7: Herself and her two young children.
[00:51:55] Speaker 2: If we could just have a clarification on the court's ruling. So, I understand the court overruled and published and I accept the ruling, but I thought under the court's previous order that the media was not going to film exhibits. And they are filming the ones that are on that screen. So, I guess I just need to clarify that, Your Honor. I'm sorry.
[00:52:22] Speaker 1: No, and I appreciate the clarification. It's important. What my ruling when we came back from break was, if you're objecting specifically to the exhibit, and then to the exhibit being published in the courtroom, and then the exhibit being published, which can be captured by media, if that's not specifically addressed, I am going to allow it. So, I didn't hear a specific objection to that. So, I appreciate you bringing that up. But that's, that's how I'm looking at every single objection, just for clarity of the record.
[00:52:54] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. So, just to make sure I correct the record, we are objecting the publication of this under the UCGA rules, for the reasons I said, but I respect that you've ruled on that. And in the future, I guess we'll just make particularly clear we're objecting to publication, because I do think anything that's getting on that screen is getting filmed.
[00:53:14] Speaker 1: Okay.
[00:53:15] Speaker 2: So, thank you, Your Honor.
[00:53:16] Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms. Nestor. And, Mr. Sturgell, did you want to respond? I mean, it's, it's the genie's a little bit out of the bottle on this particular issue, but any record you wish to make?
[00:53:27] Speaker 5: Judge, we're simply going to seek to admit each one of these exhibits, and then we're going to leave it up to Your Honor's discretion whether to publish them beyond, well, to what extent you want to publish them. All right.
[00:53:38] Speaker 1: Well, I would prefer argument on, on, on this issue from both sides. I, I don't, this is the burden of the state, so I don't want to exceed my lane by just assuming. So, I'll leave it to you to make the argument what, what you're requesting. requesting.
[00:54:28] Speaker 5: Sorry about that.
[00:54:31] Speaker 1: So before you're moving on, Mr. Sturgill, as it relates to this, I want to put this to bed and then we can move on. Were you requesting for it to be published on the three? You moved it into evidence, which I approved. It is moved into evidence, but I didn't hear anything in regards to publishing to the courtroom and then lastly publishing, which it would be captured by the camera in the background. In the back.
[00:55:00] Speaker 5: Judge, we believe these are public documents, so we would ask that they be published both to the audience and to the public at large.
[00:55:09] Speaker 1: All right. Well, given that we've gone past the gate on this one, it's been published. And I think we're all on the same page in regards to how objections may be made and how the court is going to consider it so we can move forward. All right. Thank you, Mr. Sturgill. Thank you.
[00:55:47] Speaker 5: Have you personally watched Ms. Wright's video?
[00:55:53] Speaker 7: I have, yes.
[00:55:54] Speaker 5: And what is depicted in that video?
[00:55:58] Speaker 7: It's a view of Ms. Wright's position in the crowd at the event on September 10th.
[00:56:02] Speaker 5: And absent the written statement from Ms. Wright, can you at least recognize the location that's displayed or depicted in this particular video?
[00:56:15] Speaker 7: Yes, it's the amphitheater at Utah Valley University where Mr. Kirk was doing his event. Okay.
[00:56:23] Speaker 5: On your screen, is it at six? Do you see anything on your screen yet? Just the very beginning.
[00:56:40] Speaker 7: It's there now.
[00:56:41] Speaker 5: It's there now. Do you recognize what's depicted on your screen right now?
[00:56:46] Speaker 7: I do, yes.
[00:56:47] Speaker 5: And what is that?
[00:56:49] Speaker 7: In the background is the Hall of Flags. And then you have the gazebo under which Mr. Kirk was presenting his event from. And then the crowd between where Ms. Wright was and the stage.
[00:57:01] Speaker 5: Okay. But do you recognize what this is the beginning of?
[00:57:05] Speaker 7: Yes, this is the beginning of Ms. Wright's video.
[00:57:07] Speaker 5: Okay. So as the state would move to admit, what's been marked state's exhibit 6.1? Oh, I'm sorry, six. I apologize.
[00:57:18] Speaker 1: And to what level?
[00:57:22] Speaker 2: Hold on.
[00:57:25] Speaker 1: Hold on, hold on, Ms. Nestor. I just want to get the clarification and then I'll certainly turn to you. So the levels of admitting into evidence, then the next level is publishing it to the courtroom, and then the next level is publishing it in a way that is captured by the media. What is your full request?
[00:57:44] Speaker 5: Judge, we'd ask that, first of all, it'd be admitted, that it'd be published here within the courtroom, and then that it'd also be published and publicated at large.
[00:57:55] Speaker 1: All right. Now, I'm not quite sure what this particular video is showing. Could you lay a little bit more foundation or proffer that what this is?
[00:58:04] Speaker 5: Sure. You've seen this video, Agent Hall?
[00:58:07] Speaker 7: Correct.
[00:58:07] Speaker 5: What's depicted in this video?
[00:58:10] Speaker 7: The crowd and the beginning of Mr. Kirk's presentation to the audience in the amphitheater at UVU on September 10, 2025.
[00:58:17] Speaker 5: Does it depict Ms. Wright?
[00:58:24] Speaker 7: I believe towards the end of the video it scrolls back and Ms. Wright shows the people that she's with at the event and herself, yes.
[00:58:32] Speaker 1: Is there any act of alleged violence in this particular event?
[00:58:36] Speaker 5: No, there is not, Judge, but there is not.
[00:58:40] Speaker 1: Okay. I just needed that clarification. Ms. Nestor, I'll turn to you. I just wanted to make sure I understand the full scope of this exhibit and then hear from your objection, if any.
[00:58:49] Speaker 2: Your Honor, with respect to admission, we object to its admission on the grounds that it's not properly authenticated as Ms. Wright herself is not present. And for all the constitutional reasons we raised in our standing objection, we object to that. As far as its publication, we object to its publication. It definitely is something that, in its current form, without her here, would not be admissible in any place other than a preliminary hearing. And we feel like this would really impinge on Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial. And so we're asking it not be published. And certainly, if the court does publish it, that it certainly not be filmed.
[00:59:35] Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Sturgill, any response?
[00:59:38] Speaker 5: Judge, Rule 901 addresses authenticating or identifying evidence to satisfy the requirement of authenticating a document or, I guess, authenticating a piece of evidence. The proponent, which in this case is the state, must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it to be. And then the rule goes on to explain or provide examples of how this rule can be satisfied. And at the very top, under subsection B1, is testimony of a witness with knowledge. And that goes on to say that testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be satisfies this authentication rule. Judge, you have an 1102 statement prepared by the person who actually caught these images on her camera or on her phone. And so, Judge, I think that alone sufficiently authenticates the document. And then, even further than that, you have Agent Pohl, who has reviewed the video himself and authenticates it, at least with regards to location.
[01:00:51] Speaker 1: Thank you. As it relates to admissibility of this exhibit, I believe this is State's Exhibit 6, is that? It is, Judge. All right.
[01:01:00] Speaker 2: I'm sorry to interrupt. Can I add one more thing just for the record? And for purposes of publication question, under UCJA 4-202.02, parent 4, parent R as in Richard, photograph, film, or video of a crime victim are designated as private court records. And I do think that, based on what the state has previously referenced, they are perceiving that everyone in the audience is a potential victim. And so, we think it shouldn't be published under that rule.
[01:01:39] Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Sturgill, on that final point.
[01:01:42] Speaker 5: Judge, I appreciate that argument from Ms. Nestor. And we don't necessarily disagree, but to that end, to protect who we believe is the victims in this video, I believe their faces have been blurred out.
[01:01:58] Speaker 1: Oh, I see. Ms. Nestor, have you?
[01:02:04] Speaker 2: I think it's only the minor children whose faces are blurred out, not Ms. Wright, if I'm not mistaken, unless it's been subsequently altered.
[01:02:13] Speaker 5: My recollection is they've all been blurred out.
[01:02:15] Speaker 1: All right. Let me, I need to view this again. So, let's just put it on my monitor. Again, I'm just trying to make sure that, in order to make a ruling on this, I need to view it. So, let's put it on my monitor, play it without any sound. Okay, my understanding is the prosecution has control of this exhibit. So, what I'm asking is that the sound be turned off, if there is any, and just go ahead and play it. And it's only on, well, it's on all the parties' monitors, because I want you all to view it, because that can go directly to, as you've mentioned, Ms. Nestor, whether it's possibly admissible. So, let's go ahead and play that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Based off what I've watched, there was some blurring of faces, but not of all the faces. And so, I'm going to rule that it is admissible. Sure, I'll wait until all parties are ready to proceed. So, anything further? I just want to make sure- No, George, you've got a chance to watch that. I did. So, I'm ruling that it is admissible into evidence. Again, taking into consideration the analysis the court's talked about, regards to 1102s, and this particular piece of evidence as it relates to the 1102 statement 6.1. So, I'm going to allow it to admit it into evidence, and because the faces of the alleged victims are not all obscured, there are some that are visible, it's not going to be published to in-court monitor, and obviously not to be filmed by the media. Yeah, so the court will receive it into evidence, the court will watch it again right now, and then we can continue to proceed.
[01:04:59] Speaker 5: Very good. Thank you, Judge.
[01:05:01] Speaker 1: So, to the state, if you would like to play it again for me, I'm viewing it as it relates to consideration as the magistrate.
[01:05:11] Speaker 8: Your Honor, this is discussing an issue that's going to come up again. I represent the news meeting. Have I heard on this issue?
[01:05:21] Speaker 9: Yes. The- I just wanted to address it. I've tried to be quiet. I just wanted to address it now because it's going to keep coming up, it sounds like. The classification rule that Ms. Nestor is citing, and that Your Honor was just reading, is not about in-court exhibits. That is classification for records in the court file. So, it is a fundamentally different thing when we are in a public proceeding, and the state is presenting an exhibit that you are relying on, and the public is being denied the chance to see it. That is a fundamental violation of the right of access, and it's a qualified right, and I recognize that, but that's not the ruling that you just made. You're just ruling based on the Code of Judicial Administration, which doesn't have anything to do with when something is presented in a public proceeding. So, while I recognize there are certain things where I understand that you were going to make an exhibit by exhibit evaluation based on certain exhibits that may, you know, be somewhat, may cross the heavy threshold of being so prejudicial that they cannot be shown in public, that is not this. And so, just, I just wanted to make clear that the things that are in Rule 202 are not, when it is presented in open court as an exhibit for you to rely on, the public is entitled to see what you're seeing, so that they can understand what your decision-making process is. And so, this one, it doesn't sound like, this sounds pretty anodyne to me, you know, it's just, it's not even depicting the shooting. I just wanted to clarify that the classification issue about when, you know, we're filing things with the court, and we say, like this, you know, maybe we file a motion to classify, that's not the decision that you're making today. The decision you're making today is, the state is presenting something to you, you're watching it, you're making a decision based on it, and the people in the gallery have the right to see that. Whether you allow EMC of it is a different question, and we think that the EMC should be allowed, too, for reasons that we've briefed. But I do think that it, at least, should be published to the courtroom.
[01:07:51] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[01:07:52] Speaker 9: Thank you, Your Honor.
[01:07:54] Speaker 1: To the parties, do you wish to respond? State is not. We'll submit it.
[01:08:04] Speaker 5: Well, Judge, other, I, I'm sorry.
[01:08:05] Speaker 1: Oh, hold on, okay. So, we'll go to Ms. Nestor first, and then to the state. No, you're right, please.
[01:08:12] Speaker 5: Mr. Sturgill. The only additional observation I'd make is, with regards to this video and this video only, the state doesn't believe that the defense really has standing to make an argument on behalf of the victims in this case.
[01:08:24] Speaker 1: All right, based off of what's been presented in recognizing the argument from the media, I see the differentiation and how they are differentiating the rule that was cited versus what was presented. So, I'm going to go ahead and rule that this may be played in the courtroom, but not be captured on video. So, to the camera operator, I just want to make sure that it's going to be playing on that, but I don't want it captured. I appreciate the patience of the parties as we are going through the many layers that need to be addressed on exhibits such as these. So, we'll go ahead and, once that's ready to be played, let's go ahead and do that.
[01:09:14] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[01:09:39] Speaker 1: Thank you, and that concludes Exhibit 6. Correct. Thank you. Mr. Sturgell, you may continue.
[01:09:49] Speaker 5: Agent Holder, did you or any other SBI agent collect additional video?
[01:09:53] Speaker 7: Yes, there were other videos collected.
[01:09:55] Speaker 5: What additional video did you collect?
[01:09:59] Speaker 7: Cell phone video from Mr. Phillips was collected.
[01:10:04] Speaker 5: And do you know who or how that video was collected?
[01:10:09] Speaker 7: Yes, Agent Schultz made contact with Mr. Phillips September 29th. Of 2025, and that video was provided to him. And subsequently, in preparation for the proceedings today, myself and Agent Davis met with Mr. Phillips on April 6th, and he completed an 1102 and went through the same process as Ms. Wright. The only difference being, the only difference being on this occasion, because he is a minor, his mother witnessed it and also signed the statement.
[01:10:41] Speaker 5: Okay. So, you personally reviewed Mr. Phillips' video with Mr. Phillips?
[01:10:47] Speaker 7: Correct.
[01:10:47] Speaker 5: Okay. And you had him prepare a written statement?
[01:10:51] Speaker 7: Yes, correct.
[01:10:52] Speaker 5: Again, on this written statement, are there two different authors?
[01:10:57] Speaker 7: Yes, I believe in this instance, it was myself that wrote the file name on the form. Okay.
[01:11:03] Speaker 5: And so you wrote, what part of the statement did you write?
[01:11:05] Speaker 7: Just the name of the file that we were asking Mr. Phillips to verify. Okay.
[01:11:09] Speaker 5: I'm going to have exhibited on your screen what's been marked States Exhibit 7.1. Okay. And this should just be for Agent Hall.
[01:11:34] Speaker 7: That's on my screen.
[01:11:35] Speaker 5: Is it on your screen? Yes. Do you recognize what that is?
[01:11:38] Speaker 7: I do, yes.
[01:11:39] Speaker 5: What is that?
[01:11:40] Speaker 7: The State Bureau of Investigation 1102 Form completed by Mr. Phillips. Okay.
[01:11:44] Speaker 5: And did you gather that for Mr. Phillips?
[01:11:46] Speaker 7: I did, yes.
[01:11:47] Speaker 5: And again, does this statement include the advisory that is going to be used in lieu of his testimony at prelim? It does. Does it also include a warning that if he makes a, well, the author makes a false statement that it could be punishable by being charged with a Class A misdemeanor?
[01:12:01] Speaker 7: It does, yes.
[01:12:02] Speaker 5: Okay. Anything about this exhibit look different than the day you collected it?
[01:12:08] Speaker 7: No.
[01:12:09] Speaker ?: Okay.
[01:12:10] Speaker 5: So the State would seek to admit Exhibit 7.1. Ms. Nestor?
[01:12:16] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. We would object to the admission on the grounds that this video does in fact show a close-up view of the shooting of Mr. Kirk and grievous injuries in very stark relief. And because of that, we are particularly concerned about our constitutional claims we have made and our standing objection in terms of our ability to get a fair trial if this is published. And I think, again, we have the same issue with the court, you know, being in a position where you're having to make a reliability determination without the opportunity for this individual to be cross-examined. Also, I do think the fact this is a minor that completed this form does make it protected. He's also potentially a victim under the same theory that has been stated for Ms. Wright. And under the UCJA acts for the same reason, the UCJA rules, for the same reason, these should be protected private court records. And private means it shouldn't be played to court and it shouldn't be played to the public through the media. So we would object to its admission, we would object to its publication, and we would object to its filming. Thank you.
[01:13:45] Speaker 1: Any final recents?
[01:13:47] Speaker 5: Let me address -- well, there's two things here, right? Let me address first the 1102 statement. Judge, I believe, again, that this statement was gathered in compliance with Rule 1102 B8. Just double-check. And the agent has explained that although Mr. Phillips is a minor, his mother was present. And that explains, I believe, he said the second signature on the form. With regards to publishing it, the 1102 statement that is, Judge, we believe, again, the presumption is this is a public record and that it should be not only admitted but published here in court and also published so that the media can record it. With regards -- well, do you want to address the 1102 and then I'll move on to the video? All right.
[01:14:43] Speaker 1: So we're staying focused on the 1102. Any final response, Ms. Nestor? No, Your Honor.
[01:14:48] Speaker 6: All right.
[01:14:49] Speaker 1: Thank you. As it relates to the 1102 statement and to the state representative who is displaying it, could you scroll down? I can only see the top half of this. All right. And just go to the very bottom so I can look at the totality of it. This is 7.1. All right. Based off of what's before me, State's Exhibit 7.1, I find that it is admissible under Rule 1102 and to the Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 12, to that paragraph I have referred to previously. And so it is admitted into evidence. And Mr. Sturgill, remind me, were you requesting for it to be displayed? I'm, again, focusing on 7.1. Right.
[01:15:50] Speaker 5: On 7.1, Judge, with regards to the video, we believe it's admissible. It's been authenticated properly. Hold on.
[01:15:56] Speaker 1: Hold on. I'm not talking about the video. I'm talking about 7.1, publishing it in the courtroom versus publishing it on to be captured by the media.
[01:16:05] Speaker 5: We think that it's -- the presumption is it is a court record. We believe in its redacted form. We believe it should be published in all three areas. All right.
[01:16:16] Speaker 1: Ms. Nestor, any final thoughts? I got it. All right. I'm going to go ahead and grant the publishing of Plaintiff's Exhibit 7.1 in court and that the media may capture that. Let's go ahead and do so.
[01:16:40] Speaker 5: I'm going to scroll up.
[01:16:41] Speaker ?: Slowly scroll down. All right. You may proceed. Did you admit Exhibit 7.1? It is admitted into evidence and it was published. All right. You may proceed. Did you admit Exhibit 7.1? It is admitted into evidence and it was published.
[01:16:42] Speaker 5: All right. You may proceed.
[01:16:44] Speaker ?: Did you admit Exhibit 7.1? It is admitted into evidence and it was published. All right. You may proceed. Did you admit Exhibit 7.1? It is admitted into evidence and it was published. All right. Have you personally watched Mr. Phillips' video? I have. Yes. Okay. And what did you do? It is admitted into evidence and it was published. All right. You may proceed. Did you admit Exhibit 7.1? It is admitted into evidence and it was published. All right. All right. You may proceed. Did you admit Exhibit 7.1?
[01:16:59] Speaker 1: It is admitted into evidence and it was published.
[01:17:00] Speaker ?: All right.
[01:17:01] Speaker 5: Have you personally watched Mr. Phillips' video? I have, yes.
[01:17:03] Speaker ?: Okay.
[01:17:04] Speaker 5: And what does it depict? It is a graphic video.
[01:17:06] Speaker 1: Mr. Phillips was positioned towards the front of the crowd and it does depict the
[01:17:11] Speaker 5: the moment that Mr. Kirk is shot. Okay. And independent of the 1102 statement prepared by Mr. Phillips, you watching that video, do
[01:17:18] Speaker 7: you recognize at least the location of this video? I do. It's consistent with the 1102 statement prepared by Mr. Phillips, do you recognize at least the location of this video? I do. It's consistent with the 1102 statement prepared by Mr. Phillips. Mr. Kirk is shot. Okay.
[01:17:30] Speaker 5: And independent of the 1102 statement prepared by Mr. Phillips, you watching that video, do you recognize at least the location of this video?
[01:17:39] Speaker 7: I do. It's consistent with the event that Mr. Kirk was presenting at UVU on September 10th, 2025.
[01:17:46] Speaker 5: Okay. Chair, so at this point the state would move to introduce or would move to admit what's been marked state's exhibit number seven. We would simply ask that it be admitted. We would ask, however, that it not be published beyond that. Ms. Nestor. Due to the graphic nature and the sensitive nature of the video. All right.
[01:18:06] Speaker 2: So as to the admission, the same issues that we raised as to the 1102, we would raise as to the difficulty of authenticating when the individual is not here present and all the same concerns that we raised about the 1102 itself, Your Honor. Thank you.
[01:18:25] Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Considering the- I'm sorry.
[01:18:30] Speaker 2: May I add one more? I apologize. You may. And also under Rule 403, we think it's more prejudicial than probative. And we would raise it for that reason as well.
[01:18:39] Speaker 1: Any final response, Mr. Sturgeon? No, Your Honor. All right. And this is Exhibit 7, is that correct?
[01:18:47] Speaker 5: Correct. Exhibit 7, Judge.
[01:18:49] Speaker 1: All right. I will admit Exhibit 7 into evidence based off the foundation that's laid. The 1102 is tied directly to this. And so for admission purposes, it is admitted. I am not going to authorize publication in the courtroom or obviously through media, but I will have it played on my screen. And so I view it and I just want to make sure. And please, Council, given the graphic nature of it, please guard your screens because I believe we all should be viewing this. This is evidence and I want to make sure that you all are seeing what I see to ensure that that is accurate and it's a fair representation of the exhibit that you are familiar with. So whatever you need to do, I'll give you a moment and if you could just give me a thumbs up if you're ready to proceed. Again, I want to act in a way that is dignified and respecting the rights of all persons. And for those reasons, I just want to make sure we are safeguarding to ensure this is not captured. All right. All right. To defense. Ready to proceed. All right. To the state. All right. Go ahead and let's play.
[01:20:08] Speaker 5: Exhibit seven.
[01:20:09] Speaker 1: Is there a sound?
[01:20:10] Speaker ?: All right.
[01:20:11] Speaker 1: Let's make sure that. Thank you. Andrew.
[01:20:14] Speaker ?: Andrew.
[01:20:14] Speaker 1: Andrew.
[01:20:15] Speaker ?: Andrew. Andrew. Andrew. Thank you. That concludes playing of exhibit seven.
[01:21:13] Speaker 5: You may proceed. Thank you, Judge. Agent Holt, any more video? Did you collect it? Either you or another agent with the SBA?
[01:21:24] Speaker 7: Yes, we were able to collect video. TPUSA had a videographer, Visual Impulse, who was taking coverage of the event and they provided video to us that they had captured on September 10th of 2025.
[01:21:42] Speaker 5: And do you know who or how that video was collected from Visual Impulse?
[01:21:48] Speaker 7: Yeah. Mr. Farnsworth originally provided, I believe, a flash drive to Lieutenant O'Brien with one of the local agencies. And a short time after that, on September 10th, he provided downloadable versions, electronic versions to Agent Mortensen. And an 1102 was collected from him on May 6th of 2026.
[01:22:11] Speaker 5: So an 1102 was prepared by someone with Visual Impulse?
[01:22:15] Speaker 7: Yes. Terry Farnsworth was the individual that prepared it in preparation for this. I spoke to him personally regarding that statement.
[01:22:23] Speaker 5: And do you know what his association is with Visual Impulse?
[01:22:26] Speaker 7: I believe he's the owner-operator or the director of the company.
[01:22:31] Speaker 5: And then who collected that 1102 statement from Mr. Farnsworth?
[01:22:35] Speaker 7: It was Agent Mortensen who collected it.
[01:22:38] Speaker 5: Okay. And you know that because Agent Mortensen told you or?
[01:22:41] Speaker 7: He provided it to me. And then, as I mentioned, I subsequently spoke to Terrell Farnsworth personally regarding his statement. Okay.
[01:22:54] Speaker 5: You had a chance to look at Mr. Farnsworth's 1102 statement?
[01:22:58] Speaker 7: I have, yes. Okay.
[01:23:00] Speaker 5: And again, does that statement include an advisory that any statement that he provided would be used at preliminary hearing in lieu of his life testimony? Yes. Yes. Did it also include a warning that a false statement would potentially be punished by a class A misdemeanor?
[01:23:17] Speaker 7: It did, yes.
[01:23:18] Speaker 5: Okay. I'm going to have exhibited on your screen what's been marked State's Exhibit 8.1. Let me know when that comes up. That's come up.
[01:23:27] Speaker ?: I think it's a single page. Is it not? I believe it is.
[01:23:30] Speaker 7: For the top screen.
[01:23:31] Speaker 5: For the top screen. For the top screen. For the top screen. For the top screen.
[01:23:36] Speaker 7: For the top screen. For the top screen.
[01:23:38] Speaker 5: Yes.
[01:23:39] Speaker 4: Can you see that at Agent Hall? Yes.
[01:23:41] Speaker ?: Can you see that at Agent Hall?
[01:23:41] Speaker 4: Yes.
[01:23:42] Speaker ?: Can you see that at Agent Hall? Yes. Can you see that at Agent Hall? Yes. Can you see that at Agent Hall?
[01:23:49] Speaker 5: Yes.
[01:23:50] Speaker 7: Can you see that at Agent Hall? Yes.
[01:23:52] Speaker ?: Can you see that at Agent Hall? Yes. Can you see that at Agent Hall?
[01:23:58] Speaker 5: You do recognize that? I do, yes. Okay. And again, that is what?
[01:24:03] Speaker 7: It's the 1102 statement that was provided to me. Completed by Mr. Farnsworth from Visual Impulse, who is the videographer for TPUSA for the events that they do. Okay.
[01:24:15] Speaker 5: It shows the State would move to admit State's Exhibit 8.1.
[01:24:19] Speaker 1: Ms. Nester.
[01:24:21] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. At this point, we renew our objection. This is hearsay. The statement is hearsay. We have constitutional concerns for the reasons we raised in our standing objection. We also would like to cross-examine Mr. Farnsworth about whether or not and to what extent these videos may have been altered in any way. It is clear that clips were being made out of the larger videos because he sent even his own statement says he sent larger videos and this is just a small portion of them. So, obviously, someone made clips and we don't know who, we don't know how, we don't know what they did. And for those reasons and the reasons in our standing objection, we would object to the admissibility of it. And as well, the, I don't have a redacted version of 8.1, but I assume there is one. There is personal information on this one. Do you have a redact? Okay, I don't have that one. All right. And we would object to publication just on our concerns for fair trial, the same issues. Yeah, gotcha.
[01:25:35] Speaker 4: Yeah, I think so.
[01:25:36] Speaker ?: Thank you.
[01:25:37] Speaker 2: And for all those reasons, we would object to its admissibility, its publication, and its ability to be filmed by the media, Your Honor.
[01:25:51] Speaker 1: Ms. Nestor, I just wanted to check, did you get a copy of the redact?
[01:25:55] Speaker 2: I was just handed it.
[01:25:56] Speaker 1: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that you had copies.
[01:25:59] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor.
[01:26:00] Speaker 1: So, okay, thank you. Mr. Sturgealter, would you like to respond?
[01:26:04] Speaker 5: Sure, Judge, thank you. With regards to the admissibility of the statement, Judge, I think the foundation has been laid that this statement was collected in compliance with Utah Rule of Evidence 1102, subsection B8. It constitutes reliable hearsay. It's a statement that's been made by a declarant that's written, and it's under oath, or not under oath, but pursuant to a notification of the declarant that a false statement made is punishable. I think there's been foundation to support that. In addition, Judge, Article 1, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution makes it very clear that the state, at preliminary hearing, can rely upon reliable hearsay.
[01:26:44] Speaker 1: All right, anything further before I make my ruling? No, no. Thank you. All right, applying the same analysis from the previous exhibits as it relates to the written statement under Rule 1102, and also under the Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 12, and that last paragraph, I will overrule the objection and admit. State's Exhibit 8.1. Let me hold off on that final phrase. If you could scroll down to the state representative and just stop right there. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to make sure I fully review it before I make that ruling. And if you could continue scrolling down. Just go ahead and scroll down to the end. I don't believe there's anything else, but I want to make sure. Thank you. So I do rule that, overrule the objection and State's Exhibit 7, I'm sorry, 8.1 is admitted into evidence and may be published.
[01:28:12] Speaker 5: Well, Judge, let me speak with regards to that. With regards to the 1102 statement prepared by Mr. Farnsworth in its redacted form, we believe that the presumption is this is a public record and that it should be published both here in court and made available to the public by virtue of the camera.
[01:28:31] Speaker 1: Ms. Nestor.
[01:28:34] Speaker 2: I just stand on the objection I made before your honor.
[01:28:37] Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Looking at the same analysis is admissible under Rule 1102 as well as Article 1, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution. And being that the person's identifying information is redacted and not viewable, I'm going to overrule the objection, the standing objection, and have it published both in court and may be published by the media. So let's just get it situated and what I'll have you do to the representative of the state, pause on the screen and then in 10 seconds scroll down to the full text portion. And then 10 seconds later, just slowly scroll to the remainder of the document. Thank you. All right, you can continue. Thank you, Judge. Well, hold on. She's still going through it. She's going to share the whole document. Oh, you're talking to me. Well, I should have clarified. Thank you. All right, and that concludes States Exhibit 8.1, the publication of that document. Mr. Sturgill.
[01:30:14] Speaker 5: Judge, I just think I appreciate that. Agent Hull, have you personally, so the video that's referenced in Mr. Farnsworth's 1102 statement, have you watched that visual impulse video?
[01:30:27] Speaker 7: Yes.
[01:30:28] Speaker 5: And what is depicted in that video?
[01:30:30] Speaker 7: It's a view from the cameras that Visual Impulse had established at the event, actually looking out from the stage into the crowd. It too is graphic in nature and shows the moment that Mr. Kirk is shot. Okay.
[01:30:48] Speaker 5: Does it also show Mr. Kirk throwing hats out into the crowd? Do you recall?
[01:30:53] Speaker 7: If my recollection serves, Mr. Kirk used to do that at the beginning of his events, and I believe the video does show him engaging with the crowd prior to becoming seated on the stage.
[01:31:03] Speaker ?: Okay.
[01:31:04] Speaker 5: Judge, at this point, the state would seek to admit what's been marked States Exhibit 8. 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.
[01:31:21] Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Sturgill. Turning to Ms. Nestor.
[01:31:23] Speaker 2: Your Honor, we would just renew our objections to authentication for admissibility purposes under 901 for the reason that I mentioned in the 1102, 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, if anything, was edited. And for that reason, we think it can't be authenticated, and we object to its admissibility and our standing objection for constitutional grounds.
[01:31:57] Speaker 1: Thank you. Just one moment here.
[01:32:05] Speaker 5: Judge, would you like me to respond?
[01:32:08] Speaker 1: Yes, please.
[01:32:10] Speaker 5: Just with regards to authentication, again, the state must produce evidence sufficient support of finding the item is what the proponent claims it to be. And again, under subsection B1, it's sufficient to provide testimony from someone that has first-hand knowledge or observed, well, has first-hand knowledge regarding the authenticity of that video. You heard Agent Hull testify that he spoke to the owner and the director of Visual Impulse, I believe it was testified to, that they contract with TPUSA to film their events. This particular video that the state is going to, or seeks to introduce as Exhibit 8, was shown to Mr. Farnsworth. And that is the video that Mr. Farnsworth authenticates. It says that this is video that was captured by Visual Impulse cameras. So, with regards to authentication, I think the state has sufficiently provided the court with evidence to authenticate it. And this is States Exhibit 8.
[01:33:15] Speaker 1: All rights. I'm going to overrule the objection in mid-States Exhibit 8, as it relates to publication, citing to Article 1, Section 28. 1A, that this is Declaration of Rights of Crime Victims, and it states to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity. And to those two points of respect and dignity, the court is not publishing this in the courtroom, nor is it being published, obviously, online. But the court will watch it in court, and again, to the parties, if you could, protect your screens, however you choose to, and then I'll check to see when we're ready, and then we'll have it played. So, turning to defense, is more time needed, too. Okay, thank you. Turning to the state, to your screens. All right, they, all right. I see a head nod, yes. And let's go ahead and play this video only on the monitors, and if there's sound associated with it, the sound to be played as well. And you may proceed.
[01:34:30] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[01:35:30] Speaker 1: And that concludes States Exhibit 8. Mr. Sturgill, you may proceed. Thank you, Judge.
[01:35:40] Speaker 5: So any additional, any additional video that was collected by either you or another member of the SBA?
[01:35:46] Speaker 7: Yes, the campus itself, UVU, is very well equipped with cameras throughout, and they were willing to work with us to provide video from those cameras, and so that was collected as part of the investigation also.
[01:35:59] Speaker 5: The, with regards to the UVU surveillance video, do you know if video was collected from there behind where Mr. Kirk was seated at the time that he was shot?
[01:36:14] Speaker 7: 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 one side into the amphitheater, walking underneath the Hall of Flags. And I know there was a camera situated in that location. Okay.
[01:36:30] Speaker 5: And do you know, with regards to that camera view, let me ask you this, so that particular camera view, there was surveillance that was provided to you or another agent from UVU?
[01:36:43] Speaker 7: Correct.
[01:36:44] Speaker 5: Okay. And do you recall who provided that video to you initially, and who collected it?
[01:36:48] Speaker 7: Initially, I don't know specifically for that video, but I know that whole process was, was overseen by Mr. Olson, who's responsible for that system. Okay.
[01:37:02] Speaker 5: Do you have a first name for Mr. Olson? Curtis Olson.
[01:37:04] Speaker 7: I'm sorry? Curtis Olson. Curtis Olson. Okay.
[01:37:08] Speaker 5: And do you know what Mr. Olson or Curtis Olson's position is at UVU?
[01:37:11] Speaker 7: I believe he's a director.
[01:37:13] Speaker 5: Is it his job to basically gather and forward any video that's captured by UVU surveillance?
[01:37:22] Speaker 7: He has a long title, but I think it's director of infrastructure, but he is responsible for that system. Okay.
[01:37:30] Speaker 5: With regards to this particular video, the video from underneath the Hall of Flags, what, if anything, have you done with that video in preparation for today's hearing?
[01:37:41] Speaker 7: I went specifically to meet Mr. Olson, have him review the video that we had. And again, like with the others, I had him complete an 1102 statement for us describing his role and verifying the videos. I did that on, actually on July 2nd of this year. July 2nd of this year?
[01:38:05] Speaker 5: Correct. Okay. Give me just one moment.
[01:38:10] Speaker 7: Actually, that's, I'm going to correct myself on that if I can refer back to my notes. Okay.
[01:38:18] Speaker 5: Please. If that, yes. Your notes you have there with you again?
[01:38:22] Speaker 7: Yes.
[01:38:23] Speaker 5: And referencing them will help you refresh your memory?
[01:38:26] Speaker 7: It will, yes.
[01:38:27] Speaker 5: Okay. So don't read from it out loud. Just look at it and let us know when you've refreshed your memory.
[01:38:31] Speaker 7: July 2nd seemed a little bit too, a little bit too soon. It was June 24th when I met with Mr. Olson. Okay.
[01:38:37] Speaker 5: And you personally met with Mr. Olson? I did, yes. Okay. And did you personally review this particular video? I guess the Hall of Flags video with Mr. Olson? Yes. Okay. And he prepared a written statement? He did, yes. And on that statement, was that a bureau provided statement for him? It was, yes. And on that statement, do you recall whether it includes an advisory that his written statement would be used in lieu of his life testimony? It did, yes. Does it also include a warning that if he provided a false statement on that form that he could be punished with a Class A misdemeanor?
[01:39:18] Speaker 7: It did, yes. Okay.
[01:39:20] Speaker ?: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
[01:39:50] Speaker 5: Is there something displayed on your screen right now?
[01:39:54] Speaker 7: There is, yes. It's exhibit 12.3.
[01:39:56] Speaker 5: Okay, it should be. Yeah, it should be what's been marked as state's exhibit 12.3. Do you recognize what that is?
[01:40:01] Speaker 7: Yes, it's the State Bureau of Investigations 1102 statement completed by Mr. Olson.
[01:40:07] Speaker ?: All right.
[01:40:08] Speaker 5: Does it appear to be in the same condition as when you collected it?
[01:40:11] Speaker 7: It does, yes.
[01:40:13] Speaker 5: The State would seek to admit what's been marked state's exhibit 12.3.
[01:40:20] Speaker 1: Ms. Nestor.
[01:40:22] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. We would, again, renew our concern about hearsay and our constitutional concerns about that raise and our standing objection. Also, the concern is that the individual basically states they verified the recordings but doesn't say how, doesn't say whether they viewed it, doesn't say whether someone else viewed it and told them, whether someone else viewed it and told someone else who told someone else who told them. There's just no explanation. We don't think it's sufficient to meet your reliability analysis. We object to admission and we also object to publication. This is for all the same reasons, Your Honor.
[01:41:06] Speaker 1: To the State.
[01:41:08] Speaker 5: Judge, again, the State's position is that this written statement is collected in compliance with Rule 1102, Subsection B8. It is a statement collected with both the advisory and the admonition. From what we've heard from Sergeant Hull, this individual, Curtis Olson, is the person that's -- it's his job, basically, to handle this type of information and turn it over to law enforcement.
[01:41:37] Speaker 1: All right, I'll have -- 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 is visible. Thank you. Let me review that. And if you could scroll down to the bottom of the page.
[01:41:55] Speaker ?: Thank you. And if you could scroll down to the bottom of the page. Thank you.
[01:42:09] Speaker 1: All right, under the same analysis for 1102, under Rule 1102, as well as Article 1, Section 28 of the Utah Constitution -- I'm sorry, not -- that's the wrong one. Under Article 1, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution, that final paragraph, the Court overrules the objection and admits State's Exhibit 12.3 as it relates to publication, Mr. Sturgill.
[01:42:50] Speaker 5: Judge, with regards to publication, in this particular exhibit, the state's position that 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.
[01:43:08] Speaker 1: Ms. Nestor. Nothing additional, Your Honor.
[01:43:10] Speaker ?: All right.
[01:43:11] Speaker 1: I note the standing objection from defense and given the -- in the court's previous analysis for other 1102s, the court is going to publish it both in the courtroom and so it can be captured by the media. What we'll do is the same thing. 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 let's go from there.
[01:43:51] Speaker ?: All right. All right. You can scroll down. Okay.
[01:44:22] Speaker 1: If you'd like to scroll to the very bottom. Thank you. That concludes publication of this exhibit. Thank you, sir.
[01:44:50] Speaker 5: The -- well, in Mr. Olsen's 1102 statement, he references more than one video, does he not?
[01:44:57] Speaker 7: He does, yes.
[01:44:58] Speaker 5: Okay. So, you -- with regards to the Hull of Flags video, have you -- have you seen that particular video? I have, yes. Okay. And that video, what does it depict? It's a view.
[01:45:11] Speaker 7: It's a view kind of looking what would be east, under the breezeway towards the back of the stage where Mr. Kirk was situated. It shows some movement behind the stage area and I believe through the gaps you can see some of the crowd in the amphitheater.
[01:45:29] Speaker 5: Okay. I've -- I think I've neglected to do this twice before, so I'm going to do it right this time. Would you please bring it up?
[01:45:37] Speaker ?: Okay.
[01:45:38] Speaker 5: Without question, play. Tell me when you see something on your screen.
[01:45:45] Speaker 7: It's on my screen.
[01:45:46] Speaker 5: Okay. Do you recognize what's depicted in that still image? I do, yes. What is that?
[01:45:51] Speaker 7: It's the area underneath the Hull of Flags that I refer to as the breezeway. Okay.
[01:45:56] Speaker 5: And is this the beginning of the video? It is, yes. Okay. That Mr. Olsen provided you? Yes. Yes. Judge, the state would see -- well, the state asks or seeks to admit Exhibit 9. The -- with regards to publication, this is another video that due to a sensitive -- the nature and the graphic nature of the video, we'd ask that it not be published here in the courtroom nor published in any way that the media camera could capture it. And following your reasoning, Judge, out of deference to the victims and the victims' rights to have this type of information protected.
[01:46:39] Speaker 1: Ms. Nestor.
[01:46:42] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. We would object on our standing -- objection grounds constitutional issues in terms of the concern about Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial. We agree it should not be published. We object to its admissibility.
[01:46:56] Speaker 1: 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 State's Exhibit, I believe, 9. Mr. Sturgill? Play it. No, hold on. Oh, I'm sorry. This is State's Exhibit 9? Right, correct. As it relates to publication in the courtroom or by the media, again citing to the Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 28, 1A, 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 in respect to -- respect and dignity and 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 it is about -- how long is this video?
[01:48:03] Speaker 7: Three minutes, Jerome.
[01:48:08] Speaker 1: All right. Again, to the parties, if you could just indicate if your screen is obscure. Thank you, Ms. Nestor. 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 Representative. Go ahead and play State's Exhibit 9. And if there's sound, if you could activate sound. I'm not sure if there is. All right. So there -- all right, let's go ahead and replay it. Just wanted to clarify, there is no audio, so let's go ahead and restart it. All right.
[01:48:51] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[01:51:50] Speaker 1: State's Exhibit 9 has concluded. Mr. Sturgell. Thank you, Judge.
[01:52:07] Speaker 5: I'm going to ask you just a few questions with respect to the very, well, that video and the very end of that video, which is State's Exhibit 9. Throughout that video, you can see a banner, and do you recall seeing a banner that's hanging basically in the middle of that video?
[01:52:28] Speaker 7: Yeah, I believe that's the rear of the gazebo.
[01:52:30] Speaker 5: Okay, the rear of the gazebo?
[01:52:32] Speaker 7: Yeah.
[01:52:33] Speaker 5: And what gazebo are you talking about?
[01:52:36] Speaker 7: It's like a pop-up tent that Mr. Cook was sat underneath while he was addressing the crowd.
[01:52:42] Speaker 5: Okay, so just really quick, just to be clear, where in relation to that banner that you see depicted in Exhibit 9 is Mr. Kirk?
[01:52:51] Speaker 7: Approximately dead center. Okay. He's on a stage, so he's slightly raised in relation to the bottom of that banner, and then he's seated in the middle of the stage, so approximately in the center.
[01:53:03] Speaker 5: And how many, if you know, what's the distance between the banner and then where Mr. Kirk is seated in front of that banner, if I'm understanding you correctly?
[01:53:13] Speaker 7: I don't know specifically, if I had to estimate, I would say three to five feet.
[01:53:17] Speaker 5: Okay, so close to that banner.
[01:53:19] Speaker 7: Yes.
[01:53:19] Speaker 5: Okay, I also believe towards the end of that exhibit, let me ask you this, if you know, what happened to Mr. Kirk immediately after he was shot?
[01:53:31] Speaker 7: My recollection is that Mr. Kirk's detail, his own security team, removed him from the scene whilst administering first aid, and they conducted what would be called a hasty transport to Timpanogos Hospital.
[01:53:48] Speaker 5: Okay, before you go any further, that Mr. Kirk being picked up by his own security, is that portrayed in the video? In Exhibit 9, I'm sorry?
[01:53:57] Speaker 7: It's kind of on the left, the back of that, the pop-up tent, and then you can see Mr. Kirk being carried down the left side of the video under that breezeway.
[01:54:09] Speaker 5: Okay, and then you said that he was, that there was a quick transport, is that the language you used?
[01:54:15] Speaker 7: A hasty transport.
[01:54:16] Speaker 5: A hasty transport, what does that mean?
[01:54:18] Speaker 7: Just they were trying to get him to medical care as quickly as possible, so I believe he was thrown into one of the team's vehicles, and then transported to the hospital, as opposed to waiting for an ambulance.
[01:54:28] Speaker 5: And I think you already stated, but let's just be clear, do you know which hospital he was transported to?
[01:54:33] Speaker 7: I believe it's referred to as Timpanogos Regional.
[01:54:36] Speaker 5: Okay, and do you know if he was treated there at the hospital?
[01:54:40] Speaker 7: He was, yes.
[01:54:41] Speaker 5: Okay. Do you know whether or not he was pronounced dead there at the Timpanogos Hospital?
[01:54:46] Speaker 7: He was, yes. And how do you know that? The medical examiner had an investigator that responded to the scene, and I spoke with him, and he informed me that he was at the hospital when Mr. Kirk was pronounced deceased.
[01:54:59] Speaker 5: Okay, and the medical investigator that you spoke to, do you know the name of that person?
[01:55:06] Speaker 7: Bullock, I believe, Officer Bullock, but if I can refresh my recollections.
[01:55:10] Speaker 5: If it'll help, if you have it in your notes, it 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 he is a peace officer?
[01:55:20] Speaker 7: He functions as a law enforcement officer, and he works also for the medical examiner as a death investigator.
[01:55:27] Speaker 5: Okay. Do you know whether Mr. Kirk was autopsied by the Utah Medical Examiner's Office?
[01:55:33] Speaker 7: Yes, an autopsy was conducted by the Medical Examiner's Office.
[01:55:36] Speaker 5: Do you know when and by whom?
[01:55:39] Speaker 7: Yes, it was late into the evening of September 10th, or it may even have gone through into the morning of September 11th.
[01:55:47] Speaker 5: Okay, and do you know who conducted that autopsy?
[01:55:48] Speaker 7: I'm going to refresh my recollection because of the pronunciation, if you don't mind.
[01:55:52] Speaker 5: 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.
[01:55:59] Speaker 7: Dr. Guajardo, I believe is how it's pronounced. Okay. Do you want to spell that last name? Yes, G-U-A-J-A-R-D-O.
[01:56:07] Speaker 2: 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.
[01:56:20] Speaker 1: Mr. Sturgell.
[01:56:21] Speaker 5: Well, Sturgell, 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.
[01:56:29] Speaker 1: All right. So, as it hasn't been moved into evidence just yet, I'm not making a ruling. I appreciate that. If you wish to lay more foundation, that's certainly your choice.
[01:56:39] Speaker 5: So, you are aware that the Medical Examiner's Office did conduct an autopsy?
[01:56:42] Speaker 7: I am, yes. Okay.
[01:56:44] Speaker 5: And did you receive a report from the Medical Examiner's Office?
[01:56:48] Speaker 7: I did, yes.
[01:56:50] Speaker 5: Okay. Detailing the autopsy that was performed?
[01:56:56] Speaker 7: Yes. Prior to receiving the report, myself and Agent Davis visited with the doctor.
[01:57:01] Speaker 5: Okay. You visited personally with the doctor that conducted the autopsy?
[01:57:05] Speaker 7: That's correct.
[01:57:05] Speaker 5: 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?
[01:57:12] Speaker 7: Yes. Agent Davis and I had a fairly in-depth conversation, yes.
[01:57:16] Speaker 5: And where did that conversation take place?
[01:57:18] Speaker 7: At the Medical Examiner's Office.
[01:57:20] Speaker 5: Okay. And do you recall the date and time that that personal visit took place?
[01:57:24] Speaker 7: I don't recall. Okay. Was it within? It was soon after, within a few days of the incident.
[01:57:31] Speaker 5: Of the autopsy?
[01:57:32] Speaker 7: Yes. Okay.
[01:57:33] Speaker 5: And subsequent to that visit, did you receive a report from that doctor that you visited with? We did, yes. Okay. And that's the doctor Guajardo that you're trying, you're struggling to pronounce his name. Is that fair to say?
[01:57:49] Speaker 7: Yeah, I apologize, but yes, that's who it is.
[01:57:51] Speaker 5: And the report that was sent to you, do you recall when you received that report?
[01:57:57] Speaker 7: I don't recall the specific date.
[01:57:59] Speaker 5: Okay. Have you reviewed that report?
[01:58:02] Speaker 7: Yes.
[01:58:03] Speaker 5: Have you reviewed, have you, again, you stated earlier that this is not the first murder investigation that you've worked?
[01:58:12] Speaker 7: Correct.
[01:58:13] Speaker 5: Okay. This is, I take it, this is not the first Medical Examiner's Report you've received?
[01:58:18] Speaker 7: Correct.
[01:58:19] Speaker 5: Okay. They, do the reports typically look the same?
[01:58:24] Speaker 7: Yes, they're in a standard format that the Medical Examiner uses.
[01:58:27] Speaker 5: Okay. And this report that you received? Yes. From who you believe was the doctor you spoke to? Yes. That conducted the medical exam. Was there anything peculiar about that particular report that stood out to you?
[01:58:39] Speaker 7: No, it appeared to be a standard form as used by the Medical Examiner when they send us reports.
[01:58:45] Speaker 5: Okay. Okay. On your monitor, Exhibit 11, I'm going to have displayed what's been marked, State's Exhibit Number 11, Judge, for Identification.
[01:58:59] Speaker 1: All right.
[01:59:00] Speaker 5: And I believe there's nine pages. So let me know when you see that on your screen. It's on the screen. All right. What I'd like you to do is just look at this as it scrolls down through the nine pages and wait until we get to the very end. And if you need us to pause or stop or slow down, let us know. I want you to be able to look at all nine pages. And if you need us to look at all nine pages, let me know if you need us to look at all nine
[01:59:24] Speaker ?: pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all four pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages.
[02:00:10] Speaker 5: Let me know if you need us to look at all four pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages.
[02:00:15] Speaker 7: Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages.
[02:00:16] Speaker 5: Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages.
[02:00:18] Speaker 7: Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages. Let me know if you need us to look at all three pages.
[02:00:23] Speaker 5: Do you recall, you don't recall exactly when you received that?
[02:00:27] Speaker 7: I don't unfortunately remember the specific date when I received it.
[02:00:30] Speaker 5: Do you remember how you received it?
[02:00:32] Speaker 7: Then provided to us electronically. Okay.
[02:00:35] Speaker 5: Via email?
[02:00:36] Speaker 7: Sometimes via email also on disk, compact disk. Okay.
[02:00:42] Speaker 5: Cool. And does there appear to be anything in the exhibit before you? Has that report changed at all? Or does it accurately depict what you received initially from the doctor?
[02:00:56] Speaker 7: It accurately depicts it.
[02:00:59] Speaker 5: Does the state would seek to admit exhibit 11?
[02:01:03] Speaker 1: Ms. Nestor.
[02:01:05] Speaker 2: Your Honor, this is 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 and seeing previous medical exam records, I'd like to voir dire him on his qualifications to opine about it. This is hearsay. It's highly technical. It should be presented only through an expert. It could never come in and trial in any other way. We submit that it is hearsay. And to the extent they're going to ask this individual about any opinions about it, that would be improper. He's not qualified to do that. 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 expert's experience or CV or anything that we would normally do to determine if this should even be accepted or considered by the court. And so we strenuously object to its admission and for all those reasons to its publication as well. I think there's some really personal things in there that shouldn't ever be published that are -- deal with Mr. Kirk's medical condition, history, his -- the condition of his body. It shouldn't be published, Your Honor.
[02:02:34] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[02:02:35] Speaker 5: To this state. Judge, this is clearly reliable hearsay admissible under Rule 1102 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. I would direct you specifically to subsection B-5 for purposes of -- and I'm quoting the rule -- for purposes of criminal preliminary examinations only, reliable hearsay includes in subsection 5, 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.
[02:03:15] Speaker 1: And to the second part in regards to publication.
[02:03:19] Speaker 5: As far as the publication, Judge, we -- we agree with Ms. Nestor. This is a document that does contain very sensitive information and information that Mr. Kirk's family would appreciate 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 in any fashion or way that the public can see it by virtue. Ms. Nestor. Ms. Nestor.
[02:03:46] Speaker 2: Your Honor, I just want to point out that even though 1102 has a provision about exams, I mean, the court still has the overarching mission under 1102 to make this reliability finding, right? And it's just completely in a vacuum being offered by someone who's a police officer. So, again, we would just argue that you're just not -- it's hampering you for making the analysis you need to make to admit it. And we object to it. All right.
[02:04:14] Speaker 1: Anything further from the parties? No, Your Honor. No, sir.
[02:04:17] Speaker 2: All right.
[02:04:18] Speaker 1: So, again, relying upon the analysis, Utah Constitution Article I, Section 12, as it relates to reliable hearsay. And then turning to Utah Rules of Evidence Rule 1102, B-5, specifically notes medical and autopsy reports and records. The court is going to overrule the objection and admit states exhibit, I believe it's 11? 11, yes, sir. Citing to Utah Constitution Article I, Section 28, dignity portion respect and dignity. It will not be published either in the courtroom or viewable on media by the camera for the reasons previously 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. Sturgill, is this a good point to stop to take our 15-minute afternoon break?
[02:05:32] Speaker 5: I think it would be a great idea, Judge. I've just got one last question. All right. If I could. With respect to the medical examiner's report. Agent Hole, in that report, does the doctor relate cause and manner of death?
[02:05:48] Speaker 7: He does, yes.
[02:05:49] Speaker 5: Okay. And in that report, what is the stated cause of death?
[02:05:53] Speaker 7: It was stated as a murder. And manner of death? There's a gunshot wound to the neck.
[02:05:59] Speaker ?: Okay.
[02:06:02] Speaker 2: I object. It's not stated as a murder. I believe it's stated as a homicide, which is an important distinction.
[02:06:09] Speaker 5: Judge, I'll go back and correct that. All right.
[02:06:12] Speaker 1: So I'm going to sustain it. 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. So, okay. I see. Ms. Nester, are you referring to page one of this report? I'm sorry, Your Honor.
[02:06:27] Speaker 2: Could you repeat that? I apologize.
[02:06:30] Speaker 1: As it relates to your objection for the misstatements, are you looking at page one of the report?
[02:06:39] Speaker 2: Yes.
[02:06:40] Speaker 1: All right.
[02:06:41] Speaker 2: Your Honor, I also need to make an objection on the best evidence rule, too. Thank you.
[02:06:47] Speaker 1: All right. So I'm going to sustain the objection as it relates to the manner of death. It does not say murder. But in regards to the best evidence rule, again, under 1102 and the Utah Constitution that permits reliable hearsay, it is. States Exhibit 11 is admitted. Mr. Sturgell.
[02:07:11] Speaker 5: Agent Hull, I'm going to ask you to look at the first page of Exhibit 11.
[02:07:16] Speaker ?: No?
[02:07:17] Speaker 5: Yes. You see that? Yes. Okay. So let me ask you again. And you can look at it. Yeah. And would you mind relating what the doctor reports as the manner of death?
[02:07:30] Speaker 7: Yes. I misspoke. It does say homicide.
[02:07:33] Speaker 5: And then the immediate cause of death.
[02:07:35] Speaker 7: Gunshot wound of the neck.
[02:07:37] Speaker 5: Nothing further, Judge. Well, at this moment. I think it would be a great idea that we take a 15-minute break.
[02:07:43] Speaker 1: All right. We'll go ahead and go on break. We'll come back at 3:25 and resume with this witness at that time. Court is in a brief recess.
[02:07:53] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:24:23] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[02:24:53] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[02:25:23] Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:28:23] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[02:29:23] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[02:29:53] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[02:30:23] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[02:30:53] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[02:31:53] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[02:32:23] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[02:33:23] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[02:33:53] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:35:53] Speaker ?: Thank you.
[02:36:23] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[02:36:53] Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:38:53] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[02:39:23] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[02:39:53] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[02:40:23] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[02:40:53] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:42:23] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:44:52] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[02:45:52] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
[02:46:52] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:48:52] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:50:22] Speaker ?: Thank you.
[02:50:52] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:52:52] Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:54:52] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[02:55:22] Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:57:22] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[02:58:22] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[02:58:52] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[02:59:22] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:00:52] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:02:52] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:03:52] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[03:04:22] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:05:22] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[03:05:52] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:06:52] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[03:07:22] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[03:07:52] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[03:08:22] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:09:21] Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:10:21] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:11:21] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:14:21] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[03:14:51] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[03:15:21] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:33:21] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[03:33:51] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:34:50] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[03:35:20] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[03:35:50] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[03:36:20] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[03:36:50] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[03:37:20] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:38:20] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[03:38:50] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:39:50] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[03:40:20] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:42:20] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[03:42:50] Speaker ?: Thank you.
Related Transcripts from KUTV 2 News Salt Lake City