Subpoena The Soil — Who Ordered The Ten-Inch Dig
:::caution Legal Disclaimer Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted, and is presumed innocent. Nothing on this page states as fact that any living person committed a crime, destroyed evidence, or acted improperly. Court filings in this case are subject to a gag order and sealing, so the public record is incomplete by design. :::
The One Thing We Would Do Differently
Serve subpoenas duces tecum on UVU facilities, the Utah Governor's office, the hauling contractor and the receiving landfill for every document describing who ordered the courtyard excavation, when, and where the soil went.
Utah contractor Dan Merrell has said publicly that when his paver crew arrived on Sunday September 14, 2025, roughly ten inches of soil had already been removed from under the tent, and that an earlier team had done it. Per his account the job carried a hard Monday deadline attributed on site to the Governor's office and the FBI. He photographed the excavated state.
PETN and related compounds bind to soil and resist wash-down. If a charge detonated at chest height under that canopy, the ground beneath it was the single largest residual surface at the scene, and it left the site inside a truck within days of the killing, before any independent sampler could reach it.
The defense does not need to prove the excavation was ordered to destroy residue. It needs the paper. A work order, a purchase order, a hauling ticket, a landfill weigh slip and a chain of custody either exist or they do not, and both answers are useful.
What The Defense Team Did Instead
The public record shows the defense pressing discovery and Brady demands on the FBI and ATF over DNA, chain of custody and device forensics. The site-alteration question did surface at the preliminary hearing, but as a State weakness rather than a defense theory: SBI case agent David Hull reportedly testified that he learned the courtyard had been paved from the news.
That is a striking admission and it went largely unpursued. On the public record there is no defense subpoena to UVU facilities, no records demand for the excavation work order, and no witness called who could say who ordered the first dig or where the soil went. The identity of the first crew remains unestablished on this site as well.
Where This Belongs In The Case
| Stage of the case | When that stage runs | Status of this step |
|---|---|---|
| Scene preservation — the days after | September 10-14, 2025 | Nobody outside government sampled the soil |
| Third-party records subpoena | Available from arraignment onward | Not visible on the public record |
| Preliminary hearing cross | July 6-10, 2026 — completed | Paving raised through Hull; excavation not pursued |
| Spoliation motion | After bind-over, before trial | Still fully open |
Witness Or Discovery Target
| How it would be done | Target | Took the stand? | Status on the public record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery demand never made publicly | UVU facilities work orders, September 10-20, 2025 | n/a | No public subpoena |
| Witness never called | Dan Merrell, the paving contractor who photographed the dig | No | Gave media interviews; never subpoenaed publicly |
| Witness never called | The unidentified first excavation crew | No | Identity still unestablished |
| Cross-examination — witness testified, question not asked | David Hull, SBI case agent | Yes — July 6-7, 2026 | Said he learned of paving from the news; not asked who ordered the dig |
The Questions That Were Not Asked
- Agent Hull, when you learned from the news that the courtyard had been paved, what did you do about it?
- Had the scene been formally released before the soil was removed, and by whom, in writing?
- Did any agency retain a soil sample from under the tent before excavation?
- Who was the first crew on that ground, and under whose work order?
- Where was the soil taken, and does a weigh ticket or disposal manifest exist for it?
- Was the courtyard photographed and measured before the grass was stripped?
Why A Defense Attorney Would Want This
Two different wins live in the same subpoena. If the paper exists and shows an ordinary biohazard remediation released by investigators after processing, the defense learns that this line is dead and stops spending on it. If the paper does not exist — if ten inches of a homicide scene left the site with no work order, no manifest and no retained sample — the defense has a spoliation argument in a capital case, and spoliation arguments are heard by juries.
Either way the request is modest. It asks a university and a landfill for routine documents. It does not require any federal agency to disclose anything.
The Honest Counterargument
Blood-soaked sod is medical waste, and universities remove it. Paver installation over-excavates as a matter of course, which is one straightforward explanation for the six-inch versus ten-inch discrepancy in the circulating accounts. A campus reopening after a violent death is under enormous pressure to restore the ground.
More importantly, a defense attorney weighing this must ask what it buys at the bind-over stage, where the only question is probable cause. Chasing a soil manifest before the case is even bound over spends credibility on a theory the court has no reason to reach yet. Holding it for trial is a defensible choice, not a lapse.
Sources On This Site
- 10 Inches of Dirt Hauled Away Immediately
- Dirt Replaced With Cement
- Dirt Removed Before Pavers
- Site Alteration Evidence
- FBI — Crime Scene Paving
:::danger Theoretical Exercise Only This page is a theoretical exercise. It is a written simulation of how an idealised defense attorney might approach this case. We make no claim that there is any problem with the current defense attorney, with any member of the defense team, or with any decision they have made.
Real capital defense is conducted under a gag order, with sealed filings, and on the basis of full discovery that the public has never seen. Counsel of record know facts we do not. A step described here as "not on the public record" may already have been taken privately, may have been considered and rejected for good reason, or may not yet be due at this stage of the case. Silence in the public record is not evidence of a failure.
Nothing here is legal advice, a criticism of any licensed attorney, or an allegation of professional misconduct. :::
This website's author is @HolonCitizen on X and YouTube/@HolonCitizen. Follow me there.