For the Record · Point II of XVII
Unidentified Video
Defense argument against bind-over
Argument · 2 of 17
II. The Video Shows an Unidentified Person — Not Tyler Robinson
The State has repeatedly narrated its surveillance footage using Mr. Robinson’s name. But narration is not identification.
The charging document itself admits that the person:
- kept his head down;
- wore a hat and sunglasses;
- rarely exposed a clear view of his face;
- and moved through surveillance coverage while concealing identifiable features. Source: atty.utahcounty.gov
That is continuity. It is not identity. The footage may permit the State to follow the movements of a similarly dressed person between cameras.
The State did not produce:
- a clear facial image from the roof;
- a unique scar;
- a tattoo;
- a distinctive gait scientifically compared to Mr. Robinson;
- a measurable physical characteristic exclusive to him;
- a positive eyewitness identification of him on the roof;
- or any witness who could identify distinguishing characteristics of the rooftop figure.
Even Twiggs, who knew Mr. Robinson intimately, was not presented as making an unequivocal identification from every significant image. The State’s method is to begin by labeling the person “Tyler Robinson” and then use that label as proof.
But the legal sequence must run in the opposite direction:
First establish identity. Then use the person’s movements as evidence.
The State instead asks the Court to accept:
The figure is Mr. Robinson because the State says the figure is Mr. Robinson. That is not identification.