According to Faumina, investigators identified male DNA belonging to Twiggs on two significant items recovered during the investigation. “Male DNA was obtained from item 7-1. Item 7-1 was interpreted as originating from two individuals, one of whom is Twiggs,” Faumina testified. She later added, “Male DNA was obtained from item eight sub one. Item eight sub one was interpreted as originating from two individuals, one of whom is Twiggs.”
Those items were identified in court as a screwdriver recovered from the rooftop of the Losee Center for Student Success and a towel that had been wrapped around the rifle allegedly used in the shooting. FBI forensic examiner Amanda Bakker testified about DNA levels found on items recovered, stating that Twiggs’s DNA profile aligned with the 5 percent contributor while Robinson’s DNA profile aligned better with the 95 percent.
Judge Tony Graf, who is overseeing the case, denied the Kirk family’s request to show all exhibits during the proceedings. The family had sought to display what the state would consider a confession from Lance Twiggs, who is Robinson’s partner. The judge’s decision was made in accordance with constitutional guidelines governing preliminary hearings.
Last week, the Utah Supreme Court cleared the way for Robinson’s preliminary hearing to proceed as scheduled. The hearing began Monday morning and is expected to continue throughout the week. The state’s highest court declined to hear the defense’s appeal of two pretrial rulings by Judge Graf. The appeal challenged the judge’s decisions allowing cameras in the courtroom and permitting certain hearsay evidence to be considered during the preliminary hearing.
The Utah Supreme Court noted in its order, “This matter is before the court upon a petition for permission to appeal from an interlocutory order. The petition for permission to appeal from an interlocutory order is denied. The motion to stay is deemed moot.”
The question of allowing cameras in the courtroom has been a recurring issue throughout the pretrial proceedings. Defense attorneys first sought appellate review of Graf’s rulings in May, after he denied their request for a blanket prohibition on cameras during the case. The defense also asked Graf to postpone the preliminary hearing until the Utah Supreme Court decided whether it would hear the appeal, but that request was denied.
Graf determined that requests for electronic media coverage would be evaluated on a hearing-by-hearing basis rather than through a blanket policy. Under his order, news organizations must submit requests to use cameras or other electronic equipment at least 14 days before a scheduled proceeding, while either party may ask the court to restrict or prohibit such coverage. Graf retains final authority over those decisions.
Following the procedures established in the judge’s earlier ruling, the defense sought to bar cameras from covering the preliminary hearing. Graf rejected nearly all of the defense’s requests. The judge granted only one motion, ruling that a media outlet that filed its request to take still photographs during the opening day of the hearing would not be permitted to do so because the application was submitted one day after the court’s filing deadline.
