FRFor the RecordState of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson

Public Record · Cross-Referenced

Missing Original Note

Defense argument against bind-over

Argument · 8 of 17

VIII. The Original Note Was Not Produced

The State claims that a text at 11:00 p.m. instructed Twiggs to look underneath a keyboard. Twiggs said he found a note, photographed it and returned it to the desk. He did not produce the original note. The State presented the photograph found on Twiggs’s phone. Source: rev.com Agent Davis called it a handwritten note “from Tyler to Lance.”

When asked how he knew that, he did not cite:
  • handwriting analysis;
  • fingerprints;
  • DNA;
  • paper examination;
  • ink dating;
  • an eyewitness to its creation;
  • or recovery of the original.

He answered that Twiggs told investigators about it and identified it. Source: rev.com That is not independent authentication. It is Twiggs authenticating evidence supplied by Twiggs.

The original note was not available for:
  • handwriting comparison;
  • latent-print examination;
  • DNA testing;
  • ink examination;
  • paper-source comparison;
  • indentation analysis;
  • or verification of physical possession.

The Court received a digital image. It did not receive the original alleged document.

The State’s “handwritten confession” therefore rests upon:

a photograph on Twiggs’s device, of a note Twiggs said he found, attributed to Mr. Robinson because Twiggs said it was his. That is a closed evidentiary circle.

Search the record