Stipulated Motion to Preserve Evidence
What This Image Shows
A screenshot of two pages of a court filing shown in a document viewer, black serif text on white with a grey gap at the page break. The caption block reads STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff, v. TYLER JAMES ROBINSON, Defendant, Case No. 251403576, Judge Tony F. Graf, Jr., and the title STIPULATED MOTION REGARDING ORDER TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE.
The filing asks the court to do two things: set aside its "prematurely entered" October 20, 2025 order titled "Order Granting Motion to Preserve Evidence" at docket #107, and enter the parties' agreed stipulated order in its place. The FACTS section lays out the sequence. The defense filed a Motion to Preserve Evidence on October 8, 2025 (Dkt. #75). Twelve days later, on October 20, before the State's response deadline had expired, the court entered an order granting it. No party had filed a request to submit the motion for decision. On October 22 the State filed both a response (Dkt. #117) and a motion to set the order aside (Dkt. #116). The parties then negotiated wording and agreed.
The reason researchers photograph this page is the phrase "prematurely entered." A court granted a preservation motion before the other side had finished responding, and both sides then had to unwind it. That is a procedural irregularity documented in the parties' own words, not an allegation by anyone outside the case. What it says about evidence handling in this prosecution is a fair question. See Discovery and Brady Disputes, Case Overview, and Judge Tony Graf.
Related Areas
- Cluster: Court and Legal Proceedings
- Section: Court & Trial
- Section: Legal
- All photo evidence: Photos