← AI Defense Attorney

Exculpatory Material Exists And Has Not Been Provided

:::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. :::

What We Contend

Material tending to exculpate exists — in campus video, and in intelligence and military holdings concerning the aircraft and the foreign nexus — and has not been produced to the defense.

This is a contention this exercise would attempt to prove. It is not a finding this site asserts, and it is not an allegation that any prosecutor, agency or lawyer has done anything wrong.

This page splits cleanly in two, and it says so at the top because keeping the halves apart is the whole craft of it. The campus half is ordinary Brady and spoliation practice against a reachable custodian: a Utah public university eight miles from the courthouse, ordinary institutional records, a state subpoena a judge signs without ceremony. As a motion it is close to a certainty. The federal half — classified holdings, agency decisions that reached this courtroom secondhand, the aircraft and foreign-nexus material — depends on the alternative-perpetrator gateway and is a different animal entirely. Argued together, the hard half drags the easy half down with it. Argued apart, the easy half is winnable this year.

The two halves also fail differently. The campus half fails if the inventory comes back small and boring. The federal half fails at the threshold, before anyone reads a document, because a court will not enforce a subpoena against an intelligence agency on relevance to a defense that is not before it. A defense that understands that difference files the campus motion now and holds the federal one until the proffer exists.

The word withheld is doing careful work here and it is worth pinning down. This page does not assert that anybody hid anything. Three quite different things produce the same silence, and only the first is anyone's fault:

• Never collected. A camera recorded and nobody exported the clip. There is nothing to withhold, and the material is simply gone once the disk cycles.
• Collected and not produced. A clip was pulled, a report was written, a sample was taken, and it did not reach the defense. That is a Rule 16 and Brady question with a remedy attached.
• Held by somebody who is not the prosecutor. A university's own recorder, a federal laboratory's bench file, an agency's holdings. The Utah County Attorney's Office cannot produce what it does not possess, and on 2 July 2026 it said so in writing about a different request.

The defense's own 30 September 2025 discovery request already anticipated all three. Its item 23 reaches material held by "agencies, offices, or bureaus working directly in cooperation with the State," which is the correct legal shape, because the prosecution's disclosure duty in Utah extends to what is known to others acting on the government's behalf. What the request cannot do by itself is reach a third-party institutional custodian, and that is the gap a Rule 14 subpoena fills.

The standard this thesis runs on is Utah's, and Utah is friendlier ground than the federal courts. On disclosure, State v. Bisner, 2001 UT 99, states the prosecution's fundamental duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence, and State v. Carter holds that due process requires disclosure of even unrequested information that may be exculpatory. On evidence that no longer exists, State v. Tiedemann, 2007 UT 49, declined to import the federal bad-faith requirement of Arizona v. Youngblood into the state due-process analysis, and directs a court to weigh the reasonableness of the conduct, the prejudice to the defendant, and what remedy fits. An adverse-inference instruction is on that menu. Framing the motion around the remedy rather than around blame is what makes it grantable.

The Chain Of Reasoning

Each link is a fact this site already holds, in the order the links build.

1. The State produced campus footage. Its own 6 May 2026 exhibit list carries Exhibit 12, "UVU surveillance 9/10/2025," at Bates 1448-1463, and Exhibit 13, "Doorbell camera surveillance 9/10/2025," at Bates 15215-15226. See the exhibit and Bates audit.
2. So the question is never whether footage was produced. It is produced from how many cameras, out of how many that exist? Sixteen Bates numbers is a numerator. Nothing in the material we hold supplies a denominator — not a camera count, not a system map, not a retention setting. See the campus camera inventory instrument.
3. The campus system is the backbone of the government's account — a figure tracked across UVU surveillance from roughly 11:50 a.m. — and by that account the cameras do not capture the act of firing.
4. A gap in that track was described on the certified record as a coverage fact. On Day 4 the State's crime-scene sergeant testified the figure crossed toward Campus Drive and "the suspect was out of camera's view after that." Whether that is a fact about coverage or a fact about which clips were exported is answered by one document nobody has produced.
5. Somebody exported footage twice. The same witness testified the command-post copy "was pretty grainy at the time," and that "it wasn't until we were actually able to get the footage directly from UVU" that the image could be zoomed. That is diligence — and it is, exactly, an export event that a system log recorded.
6. A video-management system writes a row every time a clip is pulled. Inventory minus export log is the footage that existed and was never taken. Export log minus production log is the footage that was taken and was not produced. Neither number requires anyone to admit anything.
7. Retention is not a hypothetical failure mode in this case. A separate custodian answered a media records request about the 11 September 2025 surrender by saying the surveillance footage "is no longer available after the 30-day retention period" — and separately that no body-worn camera footage was found. Both accounts are secondary reporting, not filings, and are catalogued at Sheriff Video Withheld.
8. The recovery of the central physical exhibit was recorded, and the State's own crime-scene sergeant has not seen the recording. On the certified Day 4 record she was asked whether anybody was videoing the discovery and recovery of the rifle. She answered: "I believe one of the officers on scene actually had his body camera on." Asked "And have you seen that?" she answered: "I have not."
9. The best photographs of that recovery are federal. Asked whether the photographs she showed the court were the best available, the same witness answered: "That was taken by the FBI, so that's all we got."
10. A documented fragment discrepancy was never assigned to anyone. On certified Day 4 the ATF firearms examiner testified she received one bullet jacket fragment and four lead fragments, that she was alerted "a few months ago" to a medical examiner photograph appearing to show seven, and — asked whether she was asked to determine whether portions had been lost — answered: "No, I was not." See Ballistics — the ATF comparison.
11. A named contamination control was requested by a laboratory and not supplied. On certified Day 5 the ATF DNA analyst testified that she requested elimination samples from the investigators involved and did not receive them, and that the request is standard practice because "they could have contaminated the evidence."
12. All three of those facts are in the record because the defense put them there. The examiner and the analyst were defense witnesses. Nothing in the State's case surfaced any of it.
13. The State's own exhibit set is unavailable as documents. Thirty-four exhibits are named with Bates numbers; the public holds zero of them and 59 screenshots of a courtroom feed instead, and no State expert notice appears anywhere on the 867-row docket — see the expert-notice instrument.
14. On the federal half, the defense has already said the material is being refused. The 28 August 2026 discovery status report states that expert declarations are being prepared "in support of a motion to compel the forensic discovery that the State, through the FBI and the ATF, has refused to provide," and that counsel will ask the court on 1 September 2026 to set a briefing schedule.
15. The pattern in items 8 through 12 is the argument, not any one of them. A recording nobody has watched. Photographs the state agency did not take and could not improve on. A fragment count that does not reconcile and that nobody was tasked to reconcile. Contamination controls a laboratory asked for and did not get. Four separate holes, four separate custodians, one hearing, and every one surfaced by the side that does not have the burden of proof.
16. Therefore: material tending to exculpate exists — some of it named on the certified record by the State's own witnesses — and it has not been produced. On the campus side that is provable with a subpoena. On the federal side it is provable only after a gateway ruling, and the defense has already begun the reachable part of it.

The Day-One Track

Our AI defense attorney was retained on 12 September 2025. Dates below are when each item would have been served, and what was still recoverable then.

When	What our attorney serves	What was still recoverable then	When the window closed
Sept 11-12, 2025	Written litigation-hold and preservation letters to Utah Valley University general counsel and campus IT, naming the video-management system, the per-device retention settings and the export log. A letter needs no court	Every camera on campus still held its 10 September recordings. No plausible retention cycle is shorter than a day	Roughly 24 Sept 2025 on a fourteen-day cycle; roughly 10 Oct 2025 on thirty days
Sept 12, 2025	The same letter to Washington County, to the transporting agency, and to every agency whose body-worn cameras ran on 10 or 11 September, demanding the activation metadata separately from the footage	Intake, lobby and body-worn recordings of the 11 September surrender	A thirty-day answer was given to a media request; the footage was reported gone
Sept 15, 2025	Rule 16 request with a production-format protocol attached — native files, Bates numbers carried in filenames, a load file per production	Nothing had been produced yet. Production one had not gone out	Closed the day the first unstamped production shipped in October 2025
Sept 17, 2025	Rule 14 subpoena duces tecum to UVU for the camera inventory, the system map, per-device retention, the outage log and the export log, tendered with a proposed attorneys'-eyes-only protective order	The complete denominator, and the export history while the cameras still held the day	Roughly Dec 2025 for the recordings; the inventory and log survive
Sept 20, 2025	Defense-investigator canvass of every street-facing and merchant camera within two blocks, logging every camera position whether or not the owner cooperates	Doorbell, merchant and dashcam footage no subpoena now reaches. See Merchant and travel CCTV	Roughly Oct-Nov 2025 for most consumer devices
Sept 22, 2025	Written demand, then a Rule 14 subpoena, to the private eyewitness who has publicly said he retains a 4K/60fps close-up of the moment — see Eyewitness and mobile video	An original file on an original device, with metadata intact and no re-encode	Still open in principle; the original device is not
Oct 1, 2025	Rule 16 demand for the laboratory request log — which analyses were ordered on which items — and for every elimination sample collected or refused	The elimination samples themselves, from investigators still on the case	Elimination samples degrade in usefulness the longer after handling they are taken
Nov 2025	Standing Brady demand renewed in writing every 60 days with a schedule attached: request, date made, date renewed, response or absence of one	A clean, dated record of non-production, which is what a sanctions motion runs on	Still open — this one has not closed

Four of those eight rows are about recordings, and recordings are the most perishable class of evidence in this case. Three of the four windows are shut. Campus video beyond the exported clips is gone on any plausible retention cycle. Consumer doorbell and merchant footage near the courtyard is gone except where a private person saved it. The Washington County recordings were answered for with a thirty-day retention explanation before any subpoena reached them.

The fourth is the one that still matters, and it is the difference between this thesis and a lament. The inventory, the retention schedule, the export log and the production log are institutional records, not recordings, and institutional records do not overwrite. A camera's video from 10 September 2025 may be irrecoverable while the database row saying who exported it, when, and from which device sits in a log that a university keeps for years. Losing the footage does not lose the proof that the footage existed. That asymmetry is the entire reason the campus half is still live in September 2026.

The comparison against what was actually filed belongs on the day-one track and two tracks compared, and this page does not repeat it. The short version is that the real defense filed a full Rule 16 and Brady demand on 30 September 2025 and a preservation motion on 8 October 2025, both early by any capital standard, and that a preservation letter — which needs no court and no opponent — is the only instrument above that was available on 12 September.

The Gap Analysis

Rows are ordered by how load-bearing they are. Rows 1 to 9 are the campus half. Rows 10 to 18 are the federal half.

#	What we would do, and of whom	Stage and date	Witness took the stand?	Asked on the record we hold?	How we checked
1	"Sergeant, how many cameras were operating on the Utah Valley University campus on 10 September 2025, and did anyone on your team ever obtain a list of them?" — to Jennifer Faumuina, SBI crime-scene sergeant	Preliminary hearing cross, 9 July 2026	Yes — 7 and 9 July 2026	Not found	T1 — certified Day 4 transcript, searched for camera, footage, surveillance, video
2	Rule 14 subpoena duces tecum to the UVU records custodian and video-management-system administrator: complete camera inventory as configured 10 Sept 2025, per-device retention settings, outage log, and the machine-generated export log	Available from arraignment; available today	n/a — records demand	Not found	T2 — no such subpoena or return in an archive holding 374 PDFs against 867 docket rows
3	"You told us the command-post copy was grainy and that you later obtained footage directly from UVU. On what date, who performed that export, and what did you ask them for — a camera, a building, a time window, or everything?" — to Sgt. Faumuina	Preliminary hearing cross, 9 July 2026	Yes	Partly — she volunteered the re-acquisition on direct; the export details were not pursued	T1 — certified Day 4, quoted verbatim above
4	Records demand on the State for a device-by-device production log — what was collected, what was produced, at which Bates number — to be set against the inventory and the export log	Rule 16; available now	n/a	Not found	T2 — filing archive searched for video, surveillance, camera, production
5	"Detective, you testified a body camera was running when the rifle was recovered and that you have not seen that recording. Has anyone in this case seen it, and where is it?" — to Sgt. Faumuina	Preliminary hearing cross, 9 July 2026	Yes	Partly — and this is the strongest Asked on the page. The predicate was asked and answered: a body camera was running, and she had not seen it. The follow-up is not in the record we hold	T1 — certified Day 4, verbatim
6	"Were the photographs of the rifle recovery you showed this court the best that exist?" — to Sgt. Faumuina	Preliminary hearing cross, 9 July 2026	Yes	Asked — answer: "That was taken by the FBI, so that's all we got"	T1 — certified Day 4, verbatim
7	Litigation-hold and preservation letter to Utah Valley University naming the VMS, the retention settings and the export log, followed by an ex parte motion if unanswered in seven days	Day one — 11 or 12 Sept 2025	n/a	Not found. A Motion to Preserve Evidence was filed 8 Oct 2025 and a stipulated order entered 4 Nov 2025; on its face that order reaches the prosecution side, not a third-party custodian's own recorder	T2 — dockets 75, 107, 116, 161 read
8	GRAMA request to UVU under Utah Code Title 63G ch. 2 for the inventory and retention schedule, so that a written denial becomes an exhibit to the subpoena motion	Available since Sept 2025; available now	n/a	Not found. Separately, a records requester reports UVU acknowledged further documents exist and declined to release them	T3 — UVU GRAMA records, secondary commentary, not a filing
9	Subpoena to the Washington County Sheriff's Office for the written retention policy, the overwrite configuration and the records-response correspondence behind the thirty-day answer, plus body-worn activation metadata	Available since Sept 2025	n/a	Not found	T3 — press and GRAMA-appeal accounts only; see Sheriff Video Withheld
10	"Ms. Karner, the medical examiner documented seven fragments and you received four plus one jacket fragment. Were you ever asked to determine where the other three are?" — to Samantha Karner, ATF firearms examiner	Preliminary hearing, 9 July 2026 — defense witness	Yes — called by the defense	Asked. Her answer: "No, I was not"	T1 — certified Day 4, verbatim
11	"Ms. Oliver, you requested elimination samples from the agents involved in this case. Did you receive them?" — to Caitlin Oliver, ATF DNA analyst	Preliminary hearing, 10 July 2026 — defense witness	Yes — called by the defense	Asked. Her answer: "Correct" — requested, not received	T1 — certified Day 5, verbatim
12	Motion to compel native, Bates-numbered production of all 34 preliminary-hearing exhibits plus the clerk's received-exhibit list for all five days	Rule 16; available now	n/a	Not found as a motion about production form; the six absent exhibit numbers were accounted for on the record. See the Bates audit	T1 for the numbering roll call; T2 for the absence of a form motion
13	Motion to compel the forensic discovery the FBI and ATF have refused, supported by expert declarations	Announced 28 Aug 2026; briefing schedule to be requested at the 1 Sept 2026 hearing	n/a	In motion — this is Track A's argument arriving on Track B. The status report says it plainly and the page welcomes it	T2 — Dkt. 257, quoted
14	"Special Agent, what material bearing on this case does your agency hold that has not been transmitted to the Utah County Attorney, and who decides?" — to a federal case agent	Preliminary hearing; available at trial	No. Exactly one FBI witness has testified live across five days, a laboratory examiner, and the defense called her. No federal case agent has been crossed	Not found	T1 for Days 4-5; Days 1-3 are uncertified machine transcriptions of a pool feed and support nothing
15	Motion for an order fixing a date certain for the State's Utah Code 77-17-13 expert notice, naming every examiner whose report the State will offer	Available now; exclusion motion not due until 30 days before a trial that has no date	n/a	Not found, and not yet due for the trial half. A step not yet due has not been missed	T2 — a grep of all 867 docket rows for "expert" returns two hits, both defense
16	Rule 16 demand for the laboratory request log — the list of analyses actually ordered on each item, including any ordered and then withdrawn or left unscheduled	Available since Sept 2025	n/a	Not found	T2; see explosive residue testing
17	Request under UCJA Rule 4-202.08 for the redacted audio of the 24 October 2025 sealed hearing, which the court ordered released and which has never appeared	Ordered released roughly mid-Jan 2026	n/a	Not found anywhere. Nine search lanes found only descriptions of the order	T4 — sealed or unpublished; see hearing audio and transcript release
18	Alternative-perpetrator notice and proffer, then subpoenas for the aircraft, foreign-nexus and military-holdings material	After arraignment on an information, before trial	n/a	Not yet due. Filing it before the proffer exists gets it denied and burns the theory	T4 — stage not reached

Two notes on how to read the table, because they change what the rows mean.

Rows 5, 6, 10 and 11 say "Asked." That is deliberate and it is the honest half of this exercise. Those four answers are on the certified record because counsel asked for them, and two of the four came from witnesses the defense called. A gap analysis whose every row said "not found" would be a table that was never checked. These four are the rows that prove the checking happened.

"Not found" is a statement about our material and never about counsel. The archive holds 374 PDFs against 867 known docket entries, only 258 of which ever had a public PDF at all, and 62 entries are marked private or sealed. Preservation letters are not filed. Investigator canvasses are not filed. Rule 14 subpoenas to private parties are frequently not docketed. The public record would look identical whether every reachable item on this page was served in week one or none of it was.

Where this chain breaks the State's case

The link it breaks is the reliability of the record the jury is shown, not the identity of any person. The State's own crime-scene sergeant testified that a body camera recorded the recovery of the rifle and that she has never seen the recording; the State's photographs of that recovery are federal photographs she describes as all she was given; the ATF examiner was alerted to a seven-versus-four fragment discrepancy and testified she was not asked to resolve it; and the ATF DNA analyst asked for the contamination controls her own laboratory treats as standard and did not get them. Every one of those is a hole in the chain that produced the exhibits, and every one of them entered the record through a defense witness. If the process that produced the evidence cannot be inspected, the output of that process cannot carry proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What would defeat this thesis

Produce the UVU export log and the production log side by side, and show that every clip the system ever exported for the relevant period carries a Bates number in the defense's hands. If the two documents reconcile — nothing exported that was not produced, and a camera inventory whose uncovered angles are inherent in the coverage rather than in the choice of what to pull — then the campus half of this thesis is finished, and it is finished by arithmetic rather than argument.

That test is named this way on purpose. It is cheap, it is binary, a records custodian can run it in an afternoon, and it can come back against us. This site would publish that result on this page, at the top, in the same words it would use for a result that helped.

The instruments that serve this thesis

• GATEWAY, federal half only — File the alternative-perpetrator notice first
• Campus half, primary — Demand the full campus camera inventory and the retention record
• Primary — Convert the Brady demands into a sanctions motion
• Supporting — Demand the State's own exhibits, and the six numbers missing from its list
• Supporting — Move to exclude the State's experts — no notice appears on the docket
• Supporting — Order the hearing audio the court already released
• Supporting — Scene alteration and spoliation, the physical-scene twin of the campus half
• Supporting — Put the FBI on the stand, the only route to a federal witness with personal knowledge

How This Reaches A Juror

This page serves Route 2 — the investigation itself. It needs no alternative perpetrator, it does not depend on winning the mechanism fight first, and on the campus half it is nearer to a certainty than to an argument. It is the page in this section where Route 2 is strongest.

The sentence counsel says in closing:

"Their own sergeant told you a body camera was running when that rifle came out of the bushes. She told you she has never seen it. Their own examiner told you the medical examiner counted seven fragments and she was handed four, and that nobody ever asked her to find the other three. Their own analyst told you she asked for the samples that would rule out contamination and never got them. They gave you sixteen pages of campus video and never told you how many cameras there were. Every one of those things you learned from a witness the defense called. Ask yourself what you would have learned if we had not called them."

That closing does not require the jury to believe anything about the microphone, the aircraft, or any foreign state. It requires only that a juror decline to be sure on the output of a process nobody was allowed to inspect.

There is a second, quieter sentence that does more work than the first, and it is arithmetic a juror can follow on their fingers:

"Inventory minus export log is the video nobody ever looked at. Export log minus production log is the video that was looked at and never shown to us. Two subtractions. Neither one needs a single person in this courtroom to admit anything. And the State has not put either document in front of you."

That is why the export log is the hinge of the campus half. A video-management system is a database with an audit trail, and every mainstream product — Genetec, Milestone, Avigilon, Verkada, Axis — writes a row when a user pulls a clip: which account, which camera, which minutes, what time. Nobody has to remember. Nobody has to concede. The log is machine-generated, contemporaneous, and indifferent to how this case comes out, which is precisely the class of evidence a jury finds easiest to trust and hardest to argue with.

The federal half reaches a juror differently and more weakly, and this page will not pretend otherwise. Its jury argument is not "here is the document." It is "here is what the court was told when it asked for the document," and it only becomes available if the gateway is cleared first. A refusal is also an answer — but a refusal a jury never hears about is not an answer at all.

What Would Have To Be Obtained

The division below is the operational point of this whole page. Everything in the first list can be pursued today, by a state-court process, against a custodian who is obliged to answer. Everything in the second list requires a ruling that does not exist yet. Filing them together is how the first list gets denied along with the second.

REACHABLE — private party subpoena, GRAMA, or a court order on items the State already holds. Every item here can be obtained without any agency waiving anything, and none of it touches classified material.

• The UVU camera inventory, system map, per-device retention settings and outage log as configured on 10 September 2025. Rule 14 subpoena, or GRAMA, or both.
• The VMS export log — who exported what clip, from which camera, covering which interval, on what date. Machine-generated and indifferent to the outcome.
• The litigation-hold notice UVU issued, if it issued one: its text, its date, its recipients, its device scope.
• The device-by-device production log from the State, to be set against the two documents above.
• The body-worn camera recording of the rifle recovery that the State's crime-scene sergeant testified was made, plus its activation metadata.
• The medical examiner's photograph showing the fragment count, and the transfer paperwork for every fragment between the examiner's office and the ATF laboratory.
• The elimination samples the ATF DNA analyst requested from the investigators, or a written record of why they were not collected.
• The laboratory request log — which analyses were ordered on which items, and which were declined, withdrawn or left unscheduled.
• Native, Bates-numbered copies of all 34 exhibits plus the clerk's received-exhibit list for the five hearing days.
• The redacted audio of the 24 October 2025 hearing, at fifteen dollars a half-day, which the court already ordered released.
• The original 4K/60fps eyewitness file described at Eyewitness and mobile video, by written demand to a private individual and then by Rule 14 subpoena.
• The doorbell-canvass log behind Exhibit 13: how many residences were approached, how many cameras were recording, and how many owners declined. Twelve Bates numbers with no canvass log behind them is another numerator without a denominator.
• Body-worn camera activation and deactivation metadata for every unit on scene on 10 and 11 September 2025, demanded separately from the footage. Metadata is a different artefact and survives when video does not.
• The health and outage log for the campus system across the operational period — which cameras were offline, degraded, misaimed, or recording to a failed volume, and since when.

UNREACHABLE without the gateway — agency holdings, classified material, or a stage not yet reached.

• Anything held by an intelligence agency bearing on the aircraft, the foreign nexus, or the halted federal inquiry. A subpoena is enforced on relevance to a defense that is before the court, and no such defense has been noticed.
• Military and installation records, which this section demands as documents only and never by naming a person — see Fort Huachuca records.
• The federal laboratory report on the bullet-jacket fragment, the autopsy report, and the ATF firearms and toolmark reports, all sealed.
• The discovery corpus itself — 45 productions, 29,237 files, a 12.1 TB drive, over 1,000,000 Discord communications, at least 25,253 location records, 660 GB of raw 3D scene-scan data, 40 agencies — governed by the 15 October 2025 Order for Discovery Protection and never filed.
• The forensic material the 28 August 2026 status report says the FBI and ATF have refused. This one is moving. It is the reachable edge of the federal half, and the defense has said it is coming.

One line about that last item, because it is the most important thing on this page for anybody reading it after today. A motion to compel forensic discovery the FBI and ATF have refused, supported by expert declarations, with a briefing schedule requested on 1 September 2026, is this thesis's own argument arriving on the real track. It is not competition for this exercise and this exercise does not want credit for it. If that motion reaches the material the federal half asks for, the federal half is answered on Track B, and this section will record it here in plain words.

The Honest Counterargument

There are five, and the first three are strong enough that a careful reader should weigh them before the thesis.

The defense has been pressing exactly this ground since day twenty, and the archive proves it. The 30 September 2025 Request for Discovery is a full Brady demand, not a form. Its item 23 asks for everything "in the possession or control of agencies, offices, or bureaus working directly in cooperation with the State" that is exculpatory or impeaching. Its item 12 asks for all photographs and video "in the possession of any law enforcement or government agency regardless of whether or not those images are intended to be used by the prosecution." Its items 24 through 30 ask for unredacted expert files, bench notes, laboratory protocols and laboratory audits. Then a Motion to Preserve Evidence on 8 October 2025, granted 20 October, and a negotiated stipulated order on 4 November that kept the notice-before-destructive-testing requirement and defined the trigger broadly enough to cover anything "likely to change the character of a piece of evidence." That definition is a defense win, and this exercise says so.

Three of the strongest findings on this page are the real defense team's work, not ours. The body-camera answer, the fragment discrepancy and the missing elimination samples all exist on the certified record because counsel asked for them, and two of the three came out of defense-called government witnesses. A section that mined those answers and then implied nobody was asking would be dishonest. What this page adds is the documents that would give those answers teeth, and a name for the pattern they form.

Universities overwrite footage constantly, and that is storage economics, not concealment. Campus systems run hundreds of cameras against finite disk and the oldest data is destroyed automatically, on a schedule nobody consults. Utah's lost-evidence analysis in State v. Tiedemann asks about the reasonableness of the conduct rather than about bad faith, and routine automated overwriting by a non-party is close to the definition of reasonable. The same answer disposes of much of the Washington County retention story. A judge may well say so, and would not be wrong.

A denominator only helps if the denominator is embarrassing. If the subpoena returns four hundred cameras of which three hundred and eighty point at parking meters and loading docks, the defense has spent credibility to produce a witness who will explain, patiently and persuasively, why coverage of the relevant sightlines was always thin. We do not know which way that document cuts. Nobody does, which is the reason to get it, but it is not a reason to promise a jury what it will say.

The university has a real and respectable objection waiting, and it is not obstruction. A complete map of where a campus's cameras point, what they cannot see, and how long they remember it is a security document. Utah's own records statute anticipates exactly that: Utah Code section 63G-2-305 classifies as protected those records whose release would jeopardise the security of government property or systems, and a public university would be within its rights to invoke it and to move to quash. The answer is not to call the objection pretextual. It is to tender a protective order with the subpoena — attorneys'-eyes-only, camera locations by zone rather than by address — and to accept a redacted inventory that still carries the count, the retention setting and the export history. A defense that demands the whole thing in open court gets nothing; one that offers the protection first usually gets most of it.

Counsel may already hold every one of these documents. Forty-five productions and 29,237 files is a great deal of paper, the produced categories expressly include surveillance video from public and private entities, and an export log is a small file that would attract no attention on its way past. The archive holds 374 PDFs against 867 docket entries, only 258 of which ever had a public PDF, 62 are marked private or sealed, and a broad gag order has been in force since 16 December 2025. Every "not found" on this page means not found in the material we hold and means nothing more than that.

And the thing this thesis most wants is the thing a court is least likely to give. The strongest single item on the reachable list is the body-worn recording of the rifle recovery — but a court order does not conjure a file that a retention cycle has already destroyed, and no public document establishes when, or whether, that recording was preserved. The honest position is that the campus half is close to a certainty as a motion and much less than a certainty as a result. Those are two different claims, and this page makes only the first.

Sources On This Site

• Surveillance Cameras — the device-by-device index
• UVU Campus Surveillance · Merchant and Travel CCTV · Eyewitness and Mobile Video · WYZE Cameras · Canon XA55 Broadcast · Tyler on Surveillance Cameras
• UVU HD Surveillance Never Publicly Released · UVU Records Redacted · Sheriff Video Withheld
• The Discovery Document Dump · The Archive Is A Purge · Bagley Bodycam Gap · Rooftop Video Trimmed
• Cameras and SD Cards Removed From the Scene · FBI Asked a Witness to Delete Their Video · Videos Deleted Remotely · Ryne Simmons — FBI Video
• Discovery and Brady Disputes · FBI Discovery Delays · FBI Evidence and Footage Preservation · Hospital Footage Seizure
• Forensic Tests Skipped · The Sealed Autopsy · Sealed Ballistics and CBLA
• Proof of Intelligence Service Involvement · Huachuca Records Withheld · The Halted Inquiry
• The Missing Minutes — timestamp jumps in the UVU camera exhibit · A Sea of Cameras — a walk-through of the hardware
• The Preliminary Hearing · Day 4 · Who Took The Witness Stand · The Legal Document Archive
• Jennifer Faumuina · Samantha Karner · Caitlin Oliver · Amanda Bakker · David Hull
• The Day-One Track · Two Tracks Compared · Method · Case Stage Map · Trial Cursor
• Defense Attorney Score Card — where you decide, area by area
• Fix — Discovery Rights · Fix Laws

---

:::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.